Zambia asked Chinese enterprises to "claim" 80 billion dollars for environmental pollution. As soon as the news came out, international public opinion was in uproar, and people couldn't help asking: Is this a serious environmental lawsuit or a well-planned political drama?
This matter started in February this year, when a tailings dam in Copperbelt Province, Zambia broke, and about 50,000 cubic meters of industrial waste flowed into the river.
After the accident, the Chinese enterprises involved acted quickly, blocked the wounds within hours, controlled the spread of pollution, and issued an emergency compensation of $ 450,000 to the affected villagers.
At that time, the Zambian government also publicly praised Chinese enterprises for "quick response and proper handling", and the Vice President personally went to the scene to affirm China's responsible attitude.
Thanks to the efforts of all parties, the water quality was quickly restored, and the water supply system returned to normal operation. At that time, we also made financial compensation. It stands to reason that this matter should have come to an end.
However, just six months after the wind shift, the Lusaka High Court received a complaint stating that Chinese corporate pollution caused “health damage to 300,000 households”, demanded $80 billion in compensation, and set up an environmental repair fund.
However, there are contradictions in this matter itself. You should know that this complaint was actually initiated by 11 people, but it is called "a hundred people's joint name".
The case is also distressing, with many of the plaintiffs being relatives of local copper-mining traders who suffered losses from direct exports of high-value minerals.
Let's take a look at the concept of $80 billion.
This money is not only the sum of Zambia's three-year GDP, but also an astronomical figure unheard of in the history of global environmental compensation. In contrast, the dambreak case of Vale in Brazil paid $2 billion in compensation, and European companies usually only fined a few million dollars for discharging pollutants in Africa. Why did the price increase hundreds of times when it was the turn of Chinese companies?
Under the various forms, it is not to blame people for the idea of "conspiracy theory", after all, in today's international situation, this is the norm, and moreover, behind this matter, maybe there is the image of America.
You know, just a few days before Zambia filed its claim, the United States announced an investment of US $6 billion to build the "Lobito Corridor", a strategic channel connecting Zambia's copper belt with Atlantic ports.
Most of the copper mines mined by Chinese companies in Zambia rely on this route for export. This move by the United States is widely regarded as a precise interception of China's copper supply chain. However, Zambia's attack on Chinese companies at this time is a coincidence of timing. It is hard to ignore.
More playful is the debt structure of Zambia, which has a total foreign debt of about $13 billion, of which the high-interest debt to Western institutions accounts for 40 percent and the debt to China is less than 30 percent.
Western creditors are pressing, Zambia's finances are tight, at this time if it can "pick" a huge amount from Chinese enterprises, can repay the debt, and can show good to the United States, can be said to be a double arrow.
Faced with the accusations, Chinese enterprises did not remain silent, China's colour mining industry openly pointed out that the main cause of the tail dam dam crash is the anti-penetration film being stolen, superimposed by extreme rainfall, is force majeure.
In addition, the company has already invested $300 million in building environmental protection facilities, building sewage treatment plants, donating school hospitals, providing free medical care, and even donating large amounts of materials during the epidemic.
However, these real investments were easily erased in the public opinion war of 80 billion claims.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also made it clear that it supports the settlement of disputes according to law, and that enterprises will not shirk their responsibilities, but resolutely opposes any exaggeration or exploitation of topics.
China also pledged $500 million over the next five years to help Zambia establish a system of environmental standards and promote cooperation within the framework of the rules.
This seemingly simple environmental dispute has long surpassed the contradiction between enterprises and communities and evolved into a mixed battlefield of resource competition, debt transfer and geo-game.
For Chinese enterprises, 80 billion claims are an alarm clock, and overseas business is not enough to comply with local laws, but also to actively practice international standards, and internalize environmental protection and social responsibility as the core competitiveness.
And for Zambia, in the short term, it may be possible to put pressure on, but if credibility is lost and foreign investment is scared, the ultimate damage is still the economic vitality of the country, resource development is a win-win path, if it becomes the role of the great power, who can really benefit?
Reference: "Chinese companies are claimed for US $80 billion? China's response" Global Times
This matter started in February this year, when a tailings dam in Copperbelt Province, Zambia broke, and about 50,000 cubic meters of industrial waste flowed into the river.
After the accident, the Chinese enterprises involved acted quickly, blocked the wounds within hours, controlled the spread of pollution, and issued an emergency compensation of $ 450,000 to the affected villagers.
At that time, the Zambian government also publicly praised Chinese enterprises for "quick response and proper handling", and the Vice President personally went to the scene to affirm China's responsible attitude.
Thanks to the efforts of all parties, the water quality was quickly restored, and the water supply system returned to normal operation. At that time, we also made financial compensation. It stands to reason that this matter should have come to an end.
However, just six months after the wind shift, the Lusaka High Court received a complaint stating that Chinese corporate pollution caused “health damage to 300,000 households”, demanded $80 billion in compensation, and set up an environmental repair fund.
However, there are contradictions in this matter itself. You should know that this complaint was actually initiated by 11 people, but it is called "a hundred people's joint name".
The case is also distressing, with many of the plaintiffs being relatives of local copper-mining traders who suffered losses from direct exports of high-value minerals.
Let's take a look at the concept of $80 billion.
This money is not only the sum of Zambia's three-year GDP, but also an astronomical figure unheard of in the history of global environmental compensation. In contrast, the dambreak case of Vale in Brazil paid $2 billion in compensation, and European companies usually only fined a few million dollars for discharging pollutants in Africa. Why did the price increase hundreds of times when it was the turn of Chinese companies?
Under the various forms, it is not to blame people for the idea of "conspiracy theory", after all, in today's international situation, this is the norm, and moreover, behind this matter, maybe there is the image of America.
You know, just a few days before Zambia filed its claim, the United States announced an investment of US $6 billion to build the "Lobito Corridor", a strategic channel connecting Zambia's copper belt with Atlantic ports.
Most of the copper mines mined by Chinese companies in Zambia rely on this route for export. This move by the United States is widely regarded as a precise interception of China's copper supply chain. However, Zambia's attack on Chinese companies at this time is a coincidence of timing. It is hard to ignore.
More playful is the debt structure of Zambia, which has a total foreign debt of about $13 billion, of which the high-interest debt to Western institutions accounts for 40 percent and the debt to China is less than 30 percent.
Western creditors are pressing, Zambia's finances are tight, at this time if it can "pick" a huge amount from Chinese enterprises, can repay the debt, and can show good to the United States, can be said to be a double arrow.
Faced with the accusations, Chinese enterprises did not remain silent, China's colour mining industry openly pointed out that the main cause of the tail dam dam crash is the anti-penetration film being stolen, superimposed by extreme rainfall, is force majeure.
In addition, the company has already invested $300 million in building environmental protection facilities, building sewage treatment plants, donating school hospitals, providing free medical care, and even donating large amounts of materials during the epidemic.
However, these real investments were easily erased in the public opinion war of 80 billion claims.
The Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also made it clear that it supports the settlement of disputes according to law, and that enterprises will not shirk their responsibilities, but resolutely opposes any exaggeration or exploitation of topics.
China also pledged $500 million over the next five years to help Zambia establish a system of environmental standards and promote cooperation within the framework of the rules.
This seemingly simple environmental dispute has long surpassed the contradiction between enterprises and communities and evolved into a mixed battlefield of resource competition, debt transfer and geo-game.
For Chinese enterprises, 80 billion claims are an alarm clock, and overseas business is not enough to comply with local laws, but also to actively practice international standards, and internalize environmental protection and social responsibility as the core competitiveness.
And for Zambia, in the short term, it may be possible to put pressure on, but if credibility is lost and foreign investment is scared, the ultimate damage is still the economic vitality of the country, resource development is a win-win path, if it becomes the role of the great power, who can really benefit?
Reference: "Chinese companies are claimed for US $80 billion? China's response" Global Times