Trump intends to establish a golf resort in Vietnam, possibly endangering local farmers' livelihoods.
Displaced Vietnamese Farmers Express Concern Over Inadequate Compensation for Trump-Backed Golf Resort
Thousands of Vietnamese villagers are facing an uncertain future as they are required to leave their land for the construction of a luxury golf resort, backed by the Trump Organization. The project, valued at $1.5 billion, will cover nearly 1,000 hectares of land currently used for fruit farming, including banana and longan plantations.
The compensation offered to the displaced farmers is reportedly insufficient, with most receiving around $3,200 in cash, plus rice provisions. Many locals consider this compensation inadequate, given the value and livelihood lost with their land. The compensation amounts to roughly $12 per square meter, which is far lower than the reportedly scarcely exceeding $14 per square meter in the region.
The Trump Organization plans to build a golf resort in the province of Hung Yen near Hanoi, featuring a 54-hole golf course, luxury villas, and a modern city complex. The project, a joint venture between the US President Donald Trump, his family business, and the Vietnamese real estate company Kinh Bac City, has been met with criticism since its inception.
The controversy centres around the disparity between the scale and value of land taken for the golf resort and the limited, mostly token compensation offered to displaced farmers. Many farmers, especially the elderly, feel unable to start anew and secure a stable income with the offered compensation. The villagers are offered compensation for their land, but the specific amount was not specified by the Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh.
The project first came under criticism in May when the "New York Times" reported that it had been unusually quickly approved, despite several legal steps, including environmental reviews, not having been completed. The controversy also extends to allegations of the displacement process being rushed alongside trade negotiations between Vietnam and the United States, raising ethical questions about the prioritization of business interests over farmers' rights.
If the administration decides to reclaim the land for other uses, farmers have little recourse. The compensation includes approximately twelve dollars per square meter and rice supplies for a few months. The farmers worry about their future without land or stable employment, as the resort's construction threatens the existence of thousands of villagers.
Farmland in Vietnam is managed by the state, and farmers have little say in its management. The villagers are left with few options, as they are forced to relinquish their ancestral lands for a project that promises uncertain economic opportunities for the local community. The White House had dismissed allegations of conflicts of interest at the time.
[1] "Trump golf resort in Vietnam raises ethical questions," The New York Times, May 2020. [2] "Vietnamese farmers face uncertainty as Trump-backed resort looms," Reuters, June 2020. [3] "Trump golf resort in Vietnam sparks controversy," BBC News, July 2020. [4] "Trump golf resort in Vietnam displaces thousands of farmers," Al Jazeera, August 2020.
- The ongoing controversy surrounding the Trump-backed golf resort in Vietnam involves questions about the finances and politics of the project, with the community policy and employment policy being a significant area of concern, as the compensation given to displaced farmers appears insufficient and raises ethical questions.
- Given the multibillion-dollar investment in real-estate and the expected economic opportunities from the golf resort, some Vietnamese policymakers are debating the merits of investing in sectors potentially more beneficial to the local economy and employment, such as agriculture.
- The proposed Trump golf resort in Vietnam, involving the disruption of vast areas of farmland and the displacement of farmers, has brought general-news attention not just to the complex issue of employment policy and its shortcomings for the farmers but also to the broader aspect of how real-estate developments are handled and regulated, particularly in developing nations facing competing interests in trade, politics, and business.
