In a statement to the General Assembly by Ambassador Jean-Maurice Ripert:
France supports expansion of the Council in the two categories of members, permanent and non-permanent. …
Consideration should be given to the emergence of new powers who have the willingness and capacity to assume significant responsibilities.
Not creating new permanent seats would enlarge the gap between the composition of the Security Council and the reality of the contemporary world.
Those able to make a significant contribution (politically, financially, or militarily) to the United Nations’ maintenance of international peace and security should be able to fully utilize their capacities with a mandate corresponding to their size (demographically, economically and politically).
The relationship between the permanent members and the non-permanent members is an essential factor to the efficiency of the Council: the permanent members ensure continuity in the Council’s work. Imbalance between the two categories of members could have negative effects on the Council’s efficiency.
In the case of an expanded Security Council, we support the accession to permanent membership of Germany, Brazil, India, Japan, and Africa. This also raises the question of including an Arab country among the permanent members of the Security Council.
France and the UK support the option of an intermediate reform that would temporarily provide for seats with terms longer than two years and immediately renewable. At the end of this initial phase (that could last 15 to 20 years), a review conference should evaluate the impact of the reform and the necessity of completing the first phase of reform.
France supports granting the G4 and Africa permanent membership and the British-French proposal of intermediate reform, which would last 15 to 20 years, that would provide seats with immediately renewable terms longer than two years. This also raises the question of including an Arab country among the permanent members of the Security Council.