The Ankara Center for Crisis and Policy Studies (ANKASAM) presents its interview with Dr. Marriyam Siddique, Senior Researcher at the Maritime Centre of Excellence (MCE) of the Pakistan Navy War College (PNWC), on the significance of the Saudi-led Multinational Maritime Defence Coalition for regional maritime security and its potential to develop into a more permanent security mechanism in the future.
1. How do you assess the emergence of the Saudi-led Multinational Maritime Defende Coalition, established on 30 July 2026, as part of a broader trend toward smaller and more flexible maritime-security arrangements?
This is a pragmatic and timely shift towards policy. Rather than replicating large, rigid institutional frameworks, the Saudi-led coalition reflects a move toward agile, issue-specific maritime cooperation – what we might call ‘minilateralism with a mission of peace.’
Its defensive posture and grounding in international law are crucial, as is its potential to enhance regional maritime domain awareness. However, its long-term viability will depend less on the number of members and more on its ability to balance deterrence with genuine diplomatic engagement. A balance Pakistan consistently advocates for in protecting shared economic lifelines without fuelling broader conflict.
2. In your view, what advantages and limitations do minilateral maritime frameworks offer compared with broader multilateral mechanisms when responding to threats against commercial shipping and strategic chokepoints?
So, let’s be honest – minilateral frameworks are attractive because they get things done. You bring together a handful of states that actually share the same concerns about a specific chokepoint, and they can move quickly. No endless committee meetings, no getting bogged down by states that have no skin in the game. The Saudi-led coalition is a textbook case – it is responsive, it is regional, and it allows for practical burden-sharing among those who are most affected.
That said, the flip side is equally real. When you operate outside a broader multilateral umbrella, you risk being seen as a closed club. Perception matters in this part of the world. If a coalition is viewed as pursuing a narrow agenda, it can fuel exactly the kind of tensions it is trying to manage.
So the real art lies in striking a balance, which Pakistan advocates, using the agility of minilateralism while remaining visibly committed to diplomacy, transparency, and international law. That is how you build trust and longevity, not just operational capability.
3. Looking ahead, could initiatives of this kind contribute to a more durable regional maritime-security architecture in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden, or are they more likely to remain issue-specific arrangements?
Look, I think the potential is there, but it really depends on how they play their cards. These coalitions could absolutely evolve into something more permanent, if they invest in institutional structures like regular info-sharing and joint training. But honestly, there is also wisdom in staying issue-specific. In a region with so many competing interests, a focused, agile arrangement might actually be more sustainable than an ambitious but fragile architecture. The key is balance: maintain transparency, stick to international law, and keep diplomacy in the driver’s seat alongside deterrence. If they manage that, they could become a fixture.
