PTI Demands Transparency as Pakistan Sends First US-Bound Mineral Shipment

ISLAMABAD/WASHINGTON: Pakistan’s growing strategic partnership with the United States entered a new phase this week as the first shipment of rare earth mineral samples was dispatched to the US — a move hailed by Washington as a milestone in bilateral cooperation. However, the opposition Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) has sharply criticized the government for allegedly keeping the details of these agreements secret and has demanded full public disclosure.

A Strategic Milestone

The US-based company US Strategic Metals (USSM) confirmed it has received the initial batch of mineral samples from Pakistan, marking the first tangible step toward implementing the September Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) signed with Islamabad. The deal — reportedly worth around $500 million — aims to establish mineral processing and development facilities within Pakistan.

Prepared in collaboration with the Frontier Works Organisation (FWO), the sample shipment includes antimony, copper concentrate, and several rare earth elements such as neodymium and praseodymium. These materials are essential to modern technology industries, including defense, renewable energy, and electric vehicles.

In a statement, USSM CEO Stacy W. Hastie called the delivery “a milestone in the Pakistan–US strategic partnership,” adding that the cooperation “opens an exciting chapter for expanding trade and deepening friendship between our two countries.”

For Pakistan, the deal offers a potential breakthrough — opening the door to a multi-billion-dollar global minerals market, creating employment, and attracting technology transfer. Experts estimate the country’s untapped mineral wealth at nearly $6 trillion, ranking it among the most resource-rich nations globally.

Political Backlash Over “Secret Deals”

Despite the optimism surrounding the shipment, PTI has expressed alarm over what it describes as “secret and lopsided” agreements with Washington. PTI Information Secretary Sheikh Waqqas Akram demanded that the government immediately make public all details of these arrangements.

He linked the mineral export to other alleged deals, including a Financial Times report claiming a proposal to offer Pasni Port to the United States — a claim already denied by Pakistan’s military officials as “a commercial idea” rather than an official policy decision.

Mr. Akram warned that such “reckless and non-transparent” decisions could “further inflame the already volatile political climate” in the country, urging the government to “learn from the disastrous mistakes of history” — referencing Mughal Emperor Jahangir’s 1615 decision to grant trade privileges to the British East India Company.

He stressed that PTI “will never accept any agreement struck at the expense of the people or the state’s sovereignty,” calling for parliamentary oversight and public accountability.

Broader Political Context

The call for transparency comes at a time of heightened political friction, with PPP and PML-N engaged in public disagreements that PTI claims are part of a “coordinated strategy to divert attention from the real national issues.”

Observers note that the rare earth partnership offers a rare moment of economic opportunity for Pakistan, but the secrecy surrounding the negotiations could deepen political mistrust. Analysts also point out that, while the mineral sector’s potential is vast, its management will require strict governance, environmental safeguards, and transparent revenue-sharing mechanisms to ensure that the benefits reach the public.

The Road Ahead

For Washington, Pakistan’s entry into the global critical minerals supply chain represents a strategic win — reducing reliance on monopolized markets and strengthening an ally’s economic base. For Islamabad, however, the success of this partnership depends on whether it can balance foreign cooperation with national transparency.

If handled well, the mineral deal could redefine Pakistan’s economic trajectory. But without clear oversight and open dialogue, it risks becoming another source of political division — rather than a catalyst for growth.