When Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Washington this week, the official language was measured and diplomatic. Yet the topics that would have been discussed – critical minerals, energy and counter-terrorism – revealed much more than routine diplomacy.
They highlighted a familiar pattern in Pakistan’s external engagements: moments when global strategic priorities converge with Islamabad’s economic needs, creating an opening that is both promising and risky. The meeting came after Pakistan’s participation in the first Ministerial Meeting on Critical Minerals in Washington earlier this month, an event bringing together dozens of countries to discuss the future of resources that now underpin technology, clean energy transitions and defense industries. For Pakistan, it was an attempt to reposition itself in a rapidly changing global economy increasingly focused on supply chains and strategic products.
Critical minerals have become the oil of the 21st century. Copper, lithium, rare earth elements and related resources are essential for electric vehicles, renewable energy technologies, batteries, advanced electronics and even military systems. Countries around the world are scrambling to ensure access to these inputs as they seek technological and economic resilience. Pakistan’s decision to participate in the ministerial conference reflects recognition that its largely untapped mineral reserves could provide a rare opportunity to diversify its economic base. Officials highlighted reserves of copper, gold and rare earths and signaled openness to U.S. investment as well as engagement with other partners, including China.
The message was clear: Pakistan wants to be seen as a credible destination for mining rather than a peripheral observer in a new race for resources. However, optimism about minerals must be tempered with caution. Pakistanis know from experience that natural wealth does not automatically translate into public prosperity. Indeed, one of the most important questions implicitly raised by the Washington discussions concerns transparency. The details of extraction are largely beyond public scrutiny.
Past deals on natural resources have often been announced with big promises but limited disclosure, leaving citizens uncertain about the long-term implications. In countries where extractive industries have been successful in driving development, transparency over contracts, royalties and environmental impact has been essential. Where secrecy prevailed, natural wealth often worsened inequality rather than reducing it. Pakistan’s own history provides a telling example. Natural gas reserves in Sui, Balochistan, have been extracted for decades and used across the country, powering industries and homes far beyond the province where the resource originated. Yet Balochistan itself remained economically underdeveloped.
The lesson is not that natural resources should remain intact, but that extraction without inclusive planning has long-term political and social consequences. As Pakistan now seeks to market its mining potential to foreign investors, the question of how profits will be shared will determine whether these projects become symbols of opportunity or sources of renewed tension. The minerals debate also intersects with broader economic realities.
Pakistan is entering this new phase against a backdrop of growing poverty and economic tensions. Recent estimates suggest that almost 28.8% of the population lived below the poverty line in 2024-2025, up from around 21.9% six years earlier. Inflation, repeated IMF stabilization programs, floods, slow growth and declining purchasing power have eroded the standard of living of most households. In this context, announcements about billions of dollars of mining investments can seem disconnected from daily life unless they are clearly linked to employment, education and long-term development.
Energy was the second big topic discussed with Rubio – and here too, Pakistan finds itself at a crossroads. The country’s energy landscape has changed dramatically over the past decade. Large-scale projects, many built with Chinese help as part of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, have helped ease the crippling electricity shortages that once defined daily life. Yet these gains have been accompanied by 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 mounting bills while policymakers struggle to balance investor commitments with public pressure.
At the same time, Pakistan has witnessed a remarkable popular shift towards solar energy. Households and businesses are increasingly installing solar panels on their roofs, driven by economic necessity rather than government planning. This quiet energy revolution reflects both the adaptation of entrepreneurs and the public’s frustration with conventional electricity pricing. 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 terms have fueled the perception that decentralized energy is limited rather than supported. The contradiction is stark: While officials discuss energy cooperation abroad, domestic politics are undermining one of the most promising local solutions to the energy crisis.
If energy cooperation with the United States is to produce lasting benefits, it must go beyond traditional project financing and focus on structural reform. Grid modernization, transparent pricing, support for renewable innovation and long-term planning reducing dependence on imported fuels are essential. Energy policy cannot continue to oscillate between costly megaprojects and short-term solutions. Pakistan needs a system that rewards efficiency, encourages innovation and protects consumers from perpetual instability. External partnerships can be useful, but only if national governance aligns with these objectives.
The third pillar of Washington’s discussions, counterterrorism, reflects an older dynamic in U.S.-Pakistan relations. For more than four decades, security cooperation has shaped bilateral relations, from the Afghan jihad of the 1980s to post-9/11. The US State Department’s statement refers to its condolences over the recent attacks in Balochistan and Islamabad and reaffirms cooperation against terrorism. Such language is familiar; indeed, the fight against terrorism has often defined how Pakistan is perceived on the international stage. Yet many Pakistanis are weary of a narrative that repeatedly presents the country primarily as a security partner rather than an economic or technological player. There is a risk that the new mining partnership will find itself entangled in this old security framework.
The challenge going forward will be to ensure that security cooperation does not overshadow broader goals of economic stability, institutional reform and social progress. The fight against terrorism may remain necessary, but it must no longer dominate the entire narrative of engagement. Diplomatically, Islamabad appears to be pursuing a balancing strategy. Pakistan has invited the United States and China to its upcoming Minerals Investment Forum in Islamabad, signaling its intention to avoid choosing sides in 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 enhance credibility. However, diversification alone is not enough. The real test lies in national governance. Transparency must become more than a rhetorical commitment. Contracts must be accessible to the public; environmental and social impact assessments must be independently reviewed; local communities should have a say in decision-making.
Sustainable development means ensuring that resources are not sacrificed for short-term financial aid. Mining projects have long timelines and the consequences of bad decisions today can last for generations. The desire to attract foreign investment must not lead to agreements that undervalue national assets or ignore environmental responsibilities. Sustainable development also requires thinking beyond extraction. Countries that have successfully exploited their natural resources have invested heavily in human capital, using revenues from these resources to diversify their economies. Pakistan’s history suggests that reliance on a single sector, whether textiles, remittances, or security-related aid, leaves the economy vulnerable.
Minerals could become an important part of growth, but only if they help finance broader transformation rather than becoming another isolated revenue source. The poverty figures underline the urgency of doing things right. As nearly a third of the population struggles to meet their basic needs, policy decisions about resources and energy take on moral as well as economic significance. Citizens are unlikely to adopt new mining projects if they perceive them to benefit distant elites while local conditions remain unchanged. Economic diplomacy abroad must therefore be accompanied by accountability and inclusion at home.
The writer is dean of the liberal arts faculty of a private university in Karachi. He tweets/posts @NaazirMahmood and can be contacted at: [email protected]
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policies of PK Press Club.tv.
Originally published in The News
