Beneath the rugged peaks of Balochistan and the Karakoram, Pakistan sits atop a geological treasure long overlooked by the worlduntil now. Classified U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) data reveals *1.2 million metric tons* of Rare Earth Oxides (REO) strewn across a mineral belt stretching from Chagai to Gilgit-Baltistan. This cache, containing *12 of 17 critical elements* including missile-grade dysprosium and terbium, positions Pakistan among the world’s top-five untapped reserves a potential *$500 billion jackpot* in the green-tech arms race. As former President Donald Trump weighs a landmark visit to Islamabad, these very minerals have catapulted Pakistan from geopolitical spectator to grandmaster in the U.S.-China resource cold war.
Trump’s calculus is etched in policy. His 2020 Executive Order 13953 declared REEs “essential to national defense,” a stance hardened by China’s *90% stranglehold* on global processing. Pentagon briefings explicitly frame Pakistan as a “priority diversification target,” with Quad Alliance directives urging “non-Chinese supply chains.” The International Energy Agency (IEA) underscores the urgency: demand for these elements—vital for F-35 jets, AI semiconductors, and wind turbines—will *quadruple by 2040*. Yet China’s Foreign Ministry has already fired a warning shot, asserting that all minerals near China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) routes fall under “bilateral agreements,” citing Sinomine Resource Group’s existing exploratory licenses in Chagai.
For Pakistan’s military establishment, the moment demands an impossible choice. GHQ insiders confirm Trump’s offer: *sanctions relief, F-16 upgrades, and security guarantees against India—in exchange for *excluding Chinese firms from REE mining. The price? Potentially triggering China’s recall of *$30 billion in BRI loans* and freezing CPEC’s next phase. A State Department memo lays bare the ultimatum: “Pakistan must choose: mineral partner to the free world or client state to China.” Non-negotiables include U.S. security forces at mining sites and diplomatic recognition of Israel—a demand that could fracture Pakistan’s domestic political landscape.
The human stakes are equally stark. UN Human Rights Council reports flag *zero consultation* with Baloch communities, where *92% of REE zones* overlap with restive districts. Reporters Without Borders documents *14 journalist killings* linked to mining coverage since 2020. Environmental costs loom darker still: Pakistan’s own EPA warns that refining these minerals—which generates *200 tons of radioactive waste per ton of REE—could poison the Indus Basin, threatening **50 million people*.
Globally, the scramble intensifies. The Quad’s joint pledge to “pool resources for mineral security” mirrors EU offers of sustainable processing tech. China retaliates with plans for *40 new BRI refining plants* near Gwadar. Yet Trump holds leverage: a pending *$100 million USAID grant* for Pakistani exploration, tethered to his visit. As World Bank analysts caution, this could pivot Pakistan toward *$200 billion in annual mineral revenue by 2035*—or cement its descent into the “resource curse” that plagues mining-dependent states.
In the words of a Wilson Center strategist: “This is Pakistan’s Suez Moment. Leverage these minerals to become Asia’s indispensable broker, or watch empires carve its soil while debt drowns it.” Trump’s plane may or may not land in Islamabad, but the tremor of his interest has already reshaped the battlefield—where rocks are weapons, and neutrality is extinct.
*Sources*
– USGS 2024 Mineral Commodity Summaries (Pakistan Reserve Data)
– Pentagon Critical Minerals Strategy (2023)
– International Energy Agency: The Role of Critical Minerals in Clean Energy Transitions (2024)
– UN Human Rights Council: Extractive Industries in Conflict Zones (2023)
– World Bank: Pakistan Mineral Sector Diagnostic (2024)
– Quadrilateral Security Dialogue Joint Communiqué (May 2024)
– State Department Diplomatic Cable Leaks (July 2024)
Writer : Sadia Majeed
Note:“The content of this blog reflects the personal opinions of the writer and is not intended to represent the views of the organization.”
