How are you going to remove France? Is there some clause in the U.N. charter that allows permanent members of the Security Council to be removed?
The argument for having France in the Security Council used to be based on the fact that it was one of the big nuclear powers. Well, now there are lots of nuclear powers. And plenty of countries with larger economies.
If we were going to dole out Security Council seats based on economic power and military power, you could make a good case for Japan to be in the SC, or Israel, or India, or Indonesia.
But you can’t have a security council with 10 veto-wielding powers, or nothing would ever get done. So some big powers are going to be left out.
What Friedman is missing is that France on the SC has become a representative for other like-minded European powers, like Germany. Call it the EU representative. Looked at in that light, France represents a huge part of the world economic and military power.
So you aren’t going to change the structure of the Security Council. But what I see happening is a marginalization of the U.N. If the U.S. goes for a second resolution and France vetos it, the U.S. is likely to pretend to continue to listen to the U.N., but in reality it will no longer really care about anything the U.N. has to say. It will be used when it is useful to the U.S., and ignored when it isn’t. Eventually, the U.N. is going to become a bureaucrat’s playground, full of itself and issuing resolutions right and left - which no one pays any attention to.
Eventually, if a threat grows that requires multi-national cooperation, the U.N. will be bypassed by a new collection of agreements between countries, and will eventually fade from relevance.
My prediction, anyway.