In early 2026, committee staff from the U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on China quietly traveled to Zambia. There were no high-profile bilateral meetings with the Zambian government. No meetings with environmental regulators in Lusaka. Instead, they met only with American-bankrolled NGOs. Unsurprisingly, the Committee has now produced a lengthy report on the collapse of the Sino Metals tailings dam. The U.S. expects the world to take its report as credible. Laughable, isn’t it?
But the most curious addition to the report is the inclusion of the 400-page Drizit Environmental assessment report. The Committee uses the disputed assessment to justify its exaggerated posturing. The committee repeatedly references the assessment to rationalize its criticism of Chinese mining operations in Zambia.
But this raises an obvious question: How did the Select Committee obtain what was supposed to be a confidential environmental assessment? Zambia is a sovereign nation with a functioning government, regulatory institutions and a legal system capable of handling environmental disputes. What exactly is America’s stake in this unfortunate industrial accident? Why has a congressional committee thousands of kilometres away become so invested in a matter that is already subject to local investigation and legal proceedings? 
The questions become even more intriguing when one considers the relationship between Drizit and Sino Metals. Drizit was hired by Sino Metals to conduct the assessment. However, the relationship later collapsed, and the two firms are now embroiled in a major legal dispute. One of Sino Metals’ key claims is that confidentiality agreements were breached.
What is beyond dispute is that the United States has shown an unusual level of interest in the incident from the very beginning.
On August 8, 2025, the U.S. Embassy in Lusaka issued a severe health alert and advised American citizens to leave Chambishi and surrounding areas. The embassy claimed without providing evidence that contaminants from the spill could potentially become airborne. The Zambian government pushed back against what many viewed as alarmist claims.
Months later, then U.S. Ambassador to Zambia Michael Gonzales attended the launch of the News Diggers documentary on the spill. The documentary itself generated controversy over questions of balance and sponsorship. At the launch, Gonzales openly urged journalists to increase pressure on the Chinese Embassy. He argued that Sino Metals was state-owned and therefore deserving of heightened scrutiny.
Competition between global powers is not new. Nor is rivalry between Washington and Beijing. However, diplomacy requires a degree of restraint, tact and respect for local institutions. When foreign diplomats appear to take sides in domestic controversies, legitimate questions arise about whether some supposedly independent processes are being influenced by geopolitical considerations.
The committee’s report does little to dispel such concerns. Throughout the document, American mining firms operating in Zambia are praised as examples of responsible investment, while Chinese firms are portrayed in overwhelmingly negative terms. Small-scale corporate social responsibility initiatives by American companies are highlighted as evidence of good corporate citizenship.
Yet Zambia’s development experience tells a more complex story.
Over the past two decades, Chinese investment has financed major roads, airports, power projects, industrial parks and other critical infrastructure across Zambia and much of Africa. These are not minor charitable projects but multi-billion-dollar investments that have transformed economies.
The United States must also recognise that the era of a unipolar world has long passed. The assumption that American institutions can position themselves as global referees is increasingly out of step with contemporary realities. African countries are more informed, more connected and more capable of making independent judgments about their partnerships.
Indeed, public opinion surveys conducted by organisations such as Gallup and Afrobarometer have repeatedly shown strong approval of Chinese engagement across many African countries. The reason is simple: Africans want results not empty geopolitical rhetoric.
The committee’s report also revives a familiar narrative by branding the Zambian government as corrupt. Such characterisations have become a predictable feature of Western commentary on Africa. Before his departure from Zambia, some might say good riddance, Ambassador Gonzales repeatedly made allegations of graft against President Hakainde Hichilema’s administration. He presented no evidence that could substantiate such sweeping claims.
Africa deserves better than recycled stereotypes and patronising narratives driven by great-power competition. Respect for sovereignty should not be conditional upon alignment with the geopolitical interests of foreign capitals.
If the United States genuinely seeks greater influence in Africa, it should begin by listening more carefully to African voices, respecting local institutions and engaging on the basis of mutual respect. Leaking confidential reports, issuing unverified health warnings and publicly pressuring journalists are unlikely to build trust.
And history offers an important lesson in humility.
The environmental legacy of Anglo American, a company backed by British and American capital, remains one of the most devastating examples of industrial pollution on the continent. Its lead mine and smelter operations in Kabwe left behind an estimated 6.4 million tonnes of toxic waste. The contamination of soil and water exposed generations of residents to dangerous levels of lead poisoning, creating one of the world’s worst environmental disasters. Estimates suggest that between 140,000 and 200,000 people were affected.
No country, corporation or geopolitical bloc has a monopoly on environmental virtue.
The United States can and should contribute to making the world a better place. But genuine leadership requires consistency, humility and self-reflection. It is difficult to throw stones when one is standing in a glass house.
