Anti-mining network demand repeal of Thai-US rare earths MOU

After Thailand signed a controversial rare earths Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the US, a network of civil society organizations has demanded that the MOU be repealed, raising concerns that it would violate Thailand’s mineral and mining laws and have a destructive impact on the environment.

The Thai NGO Coordinating Committee on Development (NGO-COD) and the Network of People Who Own Mineral Resources went to the US Embassy in Bangkok on 30 October to submit their petition calling for the repeal of the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation to Diversify Global Critical Minerals Supply Chains, commonly known as the “rare earths MOU,” which was signed by Thai Prime Minister Anutin Charnvirakul and US President Donald Trump at the 47^th ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Juthamat Srihattapadungkit from the Network of People Who Own Mineral Resources said that the MOU does not concern only rare earths, but also over 60 other “Critical Minerals.” She said that the Network is calling the repeal of the MOU because they are concerned that it would worsen the environmental impact already faced by communities living along the Sai, Kok, Ruak, and Mekong rivers. Due to rare earths mining in neighbouring countries, communities are facing the impact of heavy metal contamination in these rivers. She said that signing the MOU shows that the Prime Minister does not care about solving pollution issues in Thailand but is about to make the matter worse.

Juthamat noted that rare earths and critical minerals are often found in the north of Thailand and in the South along the Andaman Sea. The latter is very important for Thailand’s tourism industry, she said, and the Network is concerned that many of Thailand’s most popular tourism destinations would be turned into mines. She also noted that there are also effects from processing imported minerals in Thailand.

Meanwhile, Lertsak Khamkongsak, chair of the NGO-COD, said that the civil society is protesting the MOU because they are concerned that it would enable more mining in Thailand.

He explained that, under Thailand’s mineral law, concessions for mineral exploration and mining are issued separately, but the MOU would allow foreign companies to both explore and mine in Thailand. He is concerned that this would mean companies could pass over the normal procedure of applying for licenses and concession and allow foreign companies to hold a monopoly over mining in Thailand.

He is also concerned that, with the MOU, the Thai government would ignore the impact of mining on locals in favour of protecting companies’ benefit.

Several opposition MPs have also opposed the MOU. Phattarapong Leelaphat, a People’s Party MP for Chiang Mai, posted on his Facebook page on 27 October, a day after the MOU was signed, that Thailand could be at a disadvantage. He criticized Anutin and the government for signing the MOU while Thailand’s internal local and environmental impact prevention mechanism are not ready. He also noted that the northern provinces are still facing pollution problems, and that the MOU could cause more problem for the country.

Fair Party MP Kannavee Suebsang spoke in parliament on 29 October questioning the government’s decision to sign the MOU while Thailand is still dealing with transborder pollution due to rare earth mining in neighbouring countries and whether the Prime Minister has appropriately consulted with relevant agencies other than the Ministry of Industry.

Minister of Commerce Suphajee Suthumpun said on 28 October that the MOU is not legally-binding, can be repealed, and that it concerns the sharing of knowledge that would be beneficial to Thailand. She also stressed that any rare earths operation would have to comply with Thailand’s mining and environment laws, and said she believes the MOU would not mean that Thailand would have to take the side of the US. She noted that China has also expressed its intention for collaboration with Thailand. Commerce should be open and free, she said, and because Thailand is not a large country, it needs to rely on both China and the US, so it needs to balance its relationship with both countries.

Public Statement

Call to Cancel the Memorandum of Understanding on Cooperation to Diversify Global Critical Minerals Supply Chains

30 October 2025

Following the joint signing on 26 October of the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Thailand Concerning Cooperation to Diversify Global Critical Minerals Supply Chains and Promote Investments (“MOU”) by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Thailand, the Thai NGO Coordinating Committee on Development (NGO-COD) and the Network of People Who Own Mineral Resources state as follows:

The MOU that should have been signed is an MOU on Cooperation to Address Transboundary Pollution Entering the Food Chain arising from the mining of critical minerals, rare earths, and other ores in the Shan State of Burma, which has caused severe pollution of the Kok, Sai, Ruak, and Mekong Rivers in Thailand, damaging the lives, property, environment, and ecosystems of the Thai people and the peoples of the Lower Mekong Basin now and far into the future.
As the U.S. Embassy in Thailand, under previous Ambassadors, has played a role in criticizing the actions of the People’s Republic of China in constructing numerous dams in the upper Mekong—obstructing the flow of water to the Lower Mekong Basin (and attempting to blast Mekong rapids along the Thai–Lao border, leading to major destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity that sustain livelihoods in the Lower Mekong)—these actions have been a key cause of the worst drought in the Lower Mekong countries in decades.
The Thai government has twice made serious mistakes by signing: (1) the Potash Exploration and Production Agreement in Udon Thani Province on 4 October 1984, granting exploration and mining rights over a very large area of approximately 1.5 million rai; and (2) the Gold Exploration and Mining Agreement, Block 4 – Nam Kiew–Phu Khum Thong Area on 5 November 1991, granting exploration and mining rights across several districts of Loei Province over approximately 340,615 rai. Both agreements went beyond the framework of any provisions in Thailand’s Mineral Act, which is the principal law setting the criteria, procedures, and conditions for granting exploration and mining rights of all kinds.
Because these contracts pre-reserved mineral-bearing areas for “exploration” and “mining” in advance—despite no exploration or mining concessions having been granted under the normal concession system—and because no provision of the Mineral Act permits such contracts, they became monopolistic agreements layered on top of the regular concession regime. In addition, both contracts had another special characteristic: they were perpetual and did not specify an end date, unlike the Mineral Act, which specifies concession expiry (e.g., a special prospecting license for 5 years per term, and a mining lease for 25–30 years per term).
These actions were therefore unlawful—no different from the MOU, which constitutes a violation of Thailand’s Mineral Act.
Thailand’s Andaman Sea has undergone a significant transition to a better way of life, shifting from tin mining to tourism. This transition came at the cost of intense conflict, including the burning of the tantalum factory in Phuket on 23 June 1986. Tantalum is one of the critical minerals listed in the MOU. Thus, the MOU would stimulate various regions of Thailand to become hosts for foreign investment seeking concessions to explore and mine critical and rare earth minerals in increasing numbers. In southern Thailand, important minerals such as tantalum, and most rare earths, are commonly found together with tin ore veins.
The United States should therefore not encourage the Thai government to push policies arising from the MOU that would transform the Andaman Sea—its extraordinarily beautiful natural environment—into polluted industrial zones from critical and rare earth mineral mining.
If the United States wishes to reduce China’s influence and monopoly over global critical and rare earth minerals by bringing Thailand and other Asian countries into cooperation—seeing Thailand as a route or source for importing such minerals from neighboring countries, especially from Burma and Laos where China holds a monopoly, with the aim of channeling these minerals to the United States—then the MOU would serve that intention in a harmful direction.
This is because the MOU would make the United States a protector and defender of both legal and illegal import routes of critical and rare earth minerals from Burma and Laos into Thailand, regardless of the severe impacts that mining in Burma would have on the lives, property, environment, and ecosystems of the Thai people.
The United States already knows that many types of critical and rare earth minerals in Thailand exist in very small quantities and lack sufficient concentration to be commercially viable. This was demonstrated by the Thai government’s ignorance earlier in 2024 when it loudly proclaimed that Thailand ranked third in the world for lithium reserves, with 14.8 million tons—misunderstanding this figure as pure lithium, when it was in fact lithium contained in rock. If refined to purity, the yield would be only about 31,080 tons—like squeezing blood from a stone—at the cost of severe impacts in every dimension, due to the need for very large volumes of water and highly toxic reagents. Thailand itself is not ready, as it lacks the technology to refine lithium and other critical and rare earth minerals to purity.
For the reasons stated above, the United States should recognize a friendship with the Thai people that is deeper and more heartfelt than a friendship limited to the Thai government—one that continues down a path that suppresses, weakens, and reverses democracy day by day. The United States should not view Thailand as a battleground for competition with China over critical and rare earth minerals, because such actions would destroy the well-being of the Thai people who are your friends, and would entail cooperating with the Thai government in destroying the democratic health of the Thai people. We therefore call on the United States to cancel/withdraw from the MOU immediately.

Respectfully,

Thai NGO Coordinating Committee on Development (NGO-COD)
Network of People Who Own Mineral Resources (comprising the organizations listed below)

1.Rak Phu Tao Group

2.Nam Sub Kham Pa Lai Conservation Group

3.Khon Rak Ban Kerd – Six Villages, Nakhon Sawan

4.Khao Lao Yai – Pha Chan Dai Conservation Group

5.Rak Phu Sam Phak Nam, Lam Nam Sen – No Mining Group

6.Rak Wanorn Niwat District Group

7.Khon Rak Ban Kerd, Dan Khun Thot Group

8.Rak Dong Lan Group

9.Rak Ban Haeng Group

10. Omkoi Watch Group

11.Doi Tao People Against Mining Group

12.Mae Liang Anti-Mining Network

13.Rak Lam Nam La Network

14.Rak Kok Tha Ton–Mae Ai River Network

15.Rak Khao Tao Phun Network

16.Khon Rak Hua Wai Group

17.Rak Khao Kala Group

18.Khao Hin Jok Conservation Group

19.Rak Khao To Krang Group

20. Khao Traw Pling Protection Network

21. Youth Network for Khao Lamo Protection

22. Center for Protection and Revival of Local Community Rights (CPCR)

23. Northern Development Foundation (NDF)

24. ENLAWTHAI Foundation (EnLAW)

25. Campaign for Public Policy on Mineral Resources (PPM)

26. The Community Women Human Rights Defenders Collective in Thailand

27. Radical Grandma Collective

News

Search form