When Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif met US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington this week, the official language was measured and diplomatic. However, the topics supposedly discussed (critical minerals, energy and counterterrorism) revealed much more than routine diplomacy.
They pointed to a familiar pattern in Pakistan’s external engagements: moments when global strategic priorities converge with Islamabad’s economic needs, creating an opening that is at once promising and risky. The meeting took place after Pakistan’s participation in the inaugural Critical Minerals Ministerial Conference in Washington earlier this month, an event that brought together dozens of nations to discuss the future of resources that now underpin technology, clean energy transitions and defense industries. For Pakistan, this was an attempt to reposition itself in a rapidly evolving global economy, increasingly driven by strategic supply chains and commodities.
Critical minerals have become the oil of the 21st century. Copper, lithium, rare earths and related resources are essential for electric vehicles, renewable energy technologies, batteries, advanced electronics and even military systems. Countries around the world are struggling to ensure access to these inputs while seeking technological and economic resilience. Pakistan’s decision to participate in the ministerial meeting reflected recognition that its largely untapped mineral reserves could offer a rare opportunity to diversify its economic base. Officials highlighted reserves of copper, gold and rare earth elements and signaled their openness to U.S. investment along with commitment to other partners, including China.
The message was clear: Pakistan wants to be seen as a credible destination for mining development rather than a peripheral observer in a new resource race. However, optimism about minerals should be tempered by caution. Pakistanis know from experience that natural wealth does not automatically translate into public prosperity. In fact, one of the most important issues implicitly raised in the Washington discussions has to do with transparency. The details of the extraction remain largely outside public scrutiny.
Previous resource deals have often been announced with big promises but limited disclosure, leaving citizens uncertain about the long-term implications. In countries where extractive industries have managed to promote development, openness in terms of contracts, royalties and environmental impact has been fundamental. Where secrecy prevailed, resource wealth often deepened inequality rather than reduced it. Pakistan’s own history provides a cautionary example. Sui’s natural gas reserves in Balochistan have been extracted for decades and used across the country, powering industries and homes far beyond the province where the resource originated. However, Balochistan itself remained economically underdeveloped.
The lesson is not that natural resources should remain intact, but that extraction without inclusive planning generates long-term political and social consequences. As Pakistan seeks to market its mining potential to foreign investors, the question of how benefits are shared will determine whether these projects become symbols of opportunity or sources of renewed tensions. The minerals conversation also intersects with broader economic realities.
Pakistan enters this new phase amid growing poverty and economic tensions. Recent estimates suggest that almost 28.8% of the population was living below the poverty line in 2024-25, up from around 21.9% six years earlier. Inflation, repeated IMF stabilization programs, floods, slow growth and declining purchasing power have eroded the living standards of most households. In this context, announcements about billions of dollars in mining investments can seem disconnected from everyday life unless they are clearly linked to employment, education and long-term development.
Energy was the second major issue discussed with Rubio, and here too Pakistan is at a crossroads. The country’s energy landscape has changed dramatically over the last decade. Large-scale projects, many built with Chinese assistance under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, have helped reduce crippling electricity shortages that once defined daily existence. However, these advances came with financial obligations that now contribute to high tariffs and a growing circular debt problem. The result is a system in which capacity exists, but affordability has become the main challenge. Consumers face rising bills as policymakers struggle to balance investor commitments with public pressure.
At the same time, Pakistan has witnessed a notable popular shift towards solar energy. Homes and businesses are increasingly installing rooftop solar panels, driven by economic necessity rather than government planning. This quiet energy revolution reflects both corporate adaptation and public frustration with conventional electricity prices. Ironically, while citizens have embraced solar energy as a means of survival, regulatory debates and policy changes have discouraged its rapid growth. Concerns about net metering, rate adjustments and new conditions have fueled the perception that decentralized energy is being limited rather than supported. The contradiction is striking: While officials discuss energy cooperation abroad, domestic politics are undermining one of the most promising local solutions to the energy crisis.
For energy cooperation with the United States to produce lasting benefits, it must go beyond traditional project financing and focus on structural reform. Grid modernization, price transparency, support for renewable innovation and long-term planning that reduces dependence on imported fuels are essential. Energy policy cannot continue to oscillate between expensive megaprojects and short-term solutions. Pakistan needs a system that rewards efficiency, encourages innovation and protects consumers from perpetual instability. External partnerships can help, but only if internal governance aligns with these goals.
The third pillar of Washington’s discussions, counterterrorism, reflects an older dynamic in US-Pakistan relations. For more than four decades, security cooperation has shaped the bilateral relationship, from the Afghan jihad of the 1980s to the post-9/11 era. The US State Department statement referred to its condolences for the recent attacks in Balochistan and Islamabad and reaffirmed cooperation against terrorism. That language is familiar; indeed, counterterrorism has often defined how Pakistan is viewed internationally. However, many Pakistanis have grown tired of a narrative that repeatedly portrays the country primarily as a security partner rather than an economic or technological player. There is a risk that the new mining association will become entangled in this old security framework.
Looking ahead, the challenge is to ensure that security cooperation does not eclipse broader goals of economic stability, institutional reform and social progress. Counterterrorism may still be necessary, but it should no longer dominate the entire engagement narrative. Diplomatically, Islamabad appears to be following a balancing strategy. Pakistan has invited both the United States and China to its upcoming Minerals Investment Forum in Islamabad, signaling its intention to avoid choosing sides in the great power competition.
This pragmatic approach reflects geopolitical realities. Minerals have become a global arena of competition and resource-rich countries often find themselves under pressure from rival powers. The best outcome for Pakistan would be to diversify partnerships while maintaining consistent regulatory standards that apply equally to all investors. Such consistency would reduce suspicion and strengthen credibility. However, diversification alone is not enough. The real test is in internal governance. Transparency must be more than a rhetorical commitment. Contracts should be publicly accessible; environmental and social impact assessments must be independently reviewed; Local communities must have a voice in decision-making.
Sustainable development means ensuring that resources are not sacrificed for short-term financial relief. Mining projects have long timelines and the consequences of today’s poor decisions can last for generations. The desire to attract foreign investment should not lead to agreements that undervalue national assets or ignore environmental responsibilities. Sustainable development also requires thinking beyond extraction. Countries that have successfully harnessed natural resources have invested heavily in human capital, using resource revenues to diversify their economies. Pakistan’s history suggests that relying on a single sector, be it textiles, remittances or security-related aid, leaves the economy vulnerable.
Minerals could become an important component of growth, but only if they help finance a broader transformation rather than becoming another isolated source of income. The poverty figures highlight the urgency of getting this right. When nearly a third of the population struggles to meet their basic needs, political decisions about resources and energy take on both moral and economic importance. Citizens are unlikely to accept new mining projects if they perceive them to benefit distant elites while local conditions remain unchanged. Therefore, economic diplomacy abroad must be accompanied by responsibility and inclusion in the country.
The writer is dean of the liberal arts faculty of a private university in Karachi. He tweets/posts @NaazirMahmood and can be reached at: [email protected]
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of PakGazette.tv.
Originally published in The News
