First, the military camp was set up, but it does not say it is Chinese military camp with Chinese soldiers 駐紮 in it.
Second, the article does not say it was Chinese soldiers who released the dog to attack civilians.
Third, the local man only said he hates Chinese military since they took away the diamonds but not because the Chinese soldiers released the dog to attack him.
If you analyze the paragraphs you quoted according to English writing style, it actually says it is local military camp and local soldiers.
This is a very common 手法 to put 2 unrelated issues or incidences together to create a 遐想 of their relationship or lead the viewers to a conclusion or impression which the author wants to achieve.
The documents reveal that the pilot — Robert Mhlanga, who has no experience of mining — was personally appointed by Mugabe, with Chinese partners named as Deng Hongyan, Zhang Shibin, Zhang Hui, Jiang Zhaoyao and Cheng Qins. With military camps set up around the perimeter, and three separate fences erected to keep out smugglers and spies, local villagers told me appalling stories of how they have been driven from the land at gunpoint.
Soldiers set their dogs on one girl, who was mauled and killed in front of her parents. The military said this was a warning to others to keep away from the fields; at least seven people caught near the fields were killed by the military in the last month alone and their bodies dumped.
Lucky Sibanda, a local man, showed me the wounds on his back where he was attacked by dogs after the military caught him by the fields. ‘These Chinese men have hard hearts,’ he said. ‘They are taking away diamonds that could save this country. I hate them.’