Brownian motion and national security

by | Jul 22, 2008


Readers of GD will be familiar with Brownian motion – the random movement of particles suspended in a liquid or gas or the mathematical model used to describe such random movements. An updated version of the 1825 theory is the description of a relatively new phenomenon in British Government.  Brownian Motion is the time it takes an initiative or policy recommendation to move from a Ministers in-tray to reading stage before final agreement and sign off. The updated theory is named after the 51st Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his propensity... ok, you get the picture. Brownian motion is highly contagious and can move far and wide – even as far as Australia.

This morning I gave a presentation at the Lowy Institute on European approaches to national security focusing in particular on the Netherlands, the UK and the French White Paper. The original idea was then to move onto the long awaited Australian national security strategy however the strategy seems to have got stuck in somebody’s in-tray and, as such, won’t be published until next month. That said the conversation was excellent, and the range of issues between the UK and Australia disconcertingly similar, though perhaps that’s not especially surprising.

Author

  • Charlie Edwards

    Charlie Edwards is Director of National Security and Resilience Studies at the Royal United Services Institute. Prior to RUSI he was a Research Leader at the RAND Corporation focusing on Defence and Security where he conducted research and analysis on a broad range of subject areas including: the evaluation and implementation of counter-violent extremism programmes in Europe and Africa, UK cyber strategy, European emergency management, and the role of the internet in the process of radicalisation. He has undertaken fieldwork in Iraq, Somalia, and the wider Horn of Africa region.

    View all posts

More from Global Dashboard

Let’s make climate a culture war!

Let’s make climate a culture war!

If the politics of climate change end up polarised, is that so bad?  No – it’s disastrous. Or so I’ve long thought. Look at the US – where climate is even more polarised than abortion. Result: decades of flip flopping. Ambition under Clinton; reversal...