Crise au Darfour: le sang, la faim et le pétrole

Mohamed Hassan

Interview : Grégoire Lalieu et Michel Collon Le premier génocide du 21ème siècle est-il en train de se dérouler au Darfour? Cette province du Soudan est le théâtre d’un conflit qui sensibilise l’opinion internationale. Comme pour toute lutte sur le sol africain, les mêmes images de misère nous parviennent : des hommes se déchirent, des enfants pleurent et le sang coule. L’Afrique est pourtant le plus riche continent du monde. Dans ce nouveau chapitre de notre série « comprendre le monde musulman », Mohamed Hassan nous dévoile les origines du paradoxe africain et nous rappelle que si le Soudan abrite différentes ethnies et religions, il regorge surtout de pétrole. Quelles sont les origines de la crise du Darfour? L’acteur américain Georges Clooney fait partie de l’association «Save Darfur» et dénonce le massacre d’Africains par des milices arabes. Par contre, le philosophe Bernard-Henry Levy qui tente lui aussi de mobiliser l’opinion internationale affirme qu’il s’agit d’un conflit entre islam radical et islam modéré. La crise du Darfour est-elle ethnique ou religieuse? Vaste région d'Afrique riche en ressources qui aurait pu être unie et développée Les gens qui prétendent que la crise du Darfour vient d’un problème ethnique ou religieux n’ont pas une très bonne connaissance de cette région. Cette guerre est en fait économique. Les puissances coloniales d’hier et les puissances impérialistes d’aujourd’hui sont responsables des malheurs de l’Afrique. Toute cette région, partant du Soudan jusqu’au Sénégal, partageait par le passé les mêmes origines culturelles et regorgeait de richesses. Elle aurait pu être unie et développée si le colonialisme au 19ème siècle n’était pas venu créer des frontières factices au sein de cette zone. Je dis que ces frontières sont factices car elles ont été créées selon les rapports de force entre les puissances coloniales, sans tenir compte de la réalité du terrain et encore moins des désirs du peuple africain. Au Soudan, ce sont les colons britanniques qui, en appliquant la politique du «diviser pour régner», ont jeté les bases des conflits qui déchireront le pays. Le Soudan était une colonie britannique. Quel intérêt avait la Grande-Bretagne dans ce pays ? Au 19ème siècle, la compétition faisait rage en Europe. Pour pouvoir lutter dans cette course à l’hégémonie, les puissances européennes avaient besoin de ressources humaines, financières et matérielles. L’expansion du colonialisme va leur permettre d’obtenir ces ressources. La Grande-Bretagne jusqu’ici comptait sur sa colonie adorée, l’Inde, mais une situation particulière va l’amener à s’investir en Afrique : en 1805, Mohamed Ali, gouverneur de l’empire ottoman, entreprit de faire de l’Egypte un Etat moderne dont les frontières ne cessaient de s’étendre, gagnant les côtes somaliennes et englobant le Soudan. Le degré de développement atteint par celui qu’on considère aujourd’hui comme le père de l’Egypte moderne inquiéta sérieusement la Grande-Bretagne qui voyait naître un nouveau concurrent. L’Empire Britannique envahit donc l’Egypte pour en faire une colonie. Par extension, le Soudan devint une colonie anglo-égyptienne en 1898. Quelles furent les conséquences de la colonisation britannique au Soudan? Comme pour toute colonie africaine, la Grande-Bretagne appliqua la politique du «diviser pour régner». Le Soudan fut donc séparé en deux parties : dans le Nord, on garda l’arabe comme langue officielle et l’islam fut maintenu ; dans le Sud par contre, l’anglais fut imposé et des missionnaires convertirent la population au protestantisme. Aucun échange ne devait se faire entre les deux régions nouvellement créées. Les Britanniques firent même venir des minorités grecques et arméniennes pour créer une zone tampon entre le Nord et le Sud! Par ailleurs, la Grande-Bretagne instaura un système économique moderne au Soudan, que nous pourrions appeler capitalisme. Deux lignes de chemin de fer furent créées. La première reliait la colonie à l’Egypte; la seconde partait de Khartoum pour rejoindre Port-Soudan sur la côte de la mer rouge. Cette dernière ligne était véritablement l’axe de pillage du Soudan. C’est par elle que toutes les richesses quittaient le pays pour rejoindre la Grande-Bretagne ou pour se vendre sur le marché international. En vertu du choix des Britanniques, Khartoum devint une ville très dynamique sur le plan économique et une bourgeoisie centrale en émergea. La division opérée par la Grande-Bretagne entre le Nord et le Sud ainsi que le choix de Khartoum comme centre de l’activité coloniale vont avoir un impact désastreux sur l’histoire du Soudan. Ces deux éléments vont conduire le pays à sa première guerre civile. Quels seront les raisons de cette première guerre civile? Lorsque le Soudan accède à son indépendance en 1956, il n’y a toujours pas de relations entre les deux parties du pays. Le Nord est musulman, se réclame d’être arabe et a tiré bénéfice de l’activité économique durant la colonisation britannique de telle sorte que le pouvoir et les richesses se sont centralisés autour de Khartoum. Le Sud en revanche est protestant et se présente comme une communauté africaine traditionnelle. Il va réclamer un partage équitable des richesses tout au long de cette première guerre civile qui durera jusqu’en 1972. A cette date, un accord de paix est conclu et transforme le Soudan en Etat fédéral. Mais la paix ne sera que de courte durée. Vers la fin des années 70, la compagnie pétrolière américaine Chevron découvre d’importants gisements de pétrole au Soudan. Le président de l’époque, Numeiri, va alors vouloir changer les frontières de l’Etat fédéral pour permettre à l’autorité centrale de contrôler les richesses pétrolières. Cette violation de l’accord de paix va relancer la guerre entre le Nord et le Sud du pays en 1980. Cette guerre va durer plus de 25 ans. Le Soudan abrite la province du Darfour à l'Ouest et est traversé par le Nil En un peu plus de 50 ans, le Soudan a donc connu deux guerres civiles. Et aujourd’hui, la crise du Darfour embrase l’Ouest du pays. La situation ethnique semble tout de même explosive au Soudan. On comprend mieux pourquoi certains médias parlent de poudrière lorsqu’ils font référence à ce pays. Il n’en est rien. La plupart des ethnies qui vivent au Nord du pays sont musulmanes, ressemblent physiquement à des Egyptiens et si beaucoup possèdent leur propre dialecte, toutes parlent l’arabe comme langue officielle. Les communautés du Sud sont plus typiques de la région du Nil. Leur peau est plus sombre et les religions dominantes sont le christianisme et l’animisme. Mais les guerres civiles qui ont opposé ces deux parties du pays n’étaient ni ethniques ni religieuses. Elles portaient en fait sur une répartition équitable des richesses. Observons la situation du Darfour maintenant. Il s’agit d’une région melting-pot où des tribus nomades musulmanes et arabophones, telles que les Janjawids ou les Takawas, côtoient des fermiers sédentaires. Par temps de forte sécheresse, ces tribus nomades migrent vers les installations des fermiers sédentaires et des combats éclatent. L’idée que des Africains se font massacrer par des Arabes est construite sur l’observation erronée que les Janjawids sont arabes. Mais si cette tribu revendique d’hypothétiques origines arabes, vous ne voyez, en réalité, rien chez eux de ce que nous connaissons des Arabes aujourd’hui. Il y a un autre élément important de cette crise dont on parle très peu : les intérêts de la bourgeoisie régionale. Avec la découverte du pétrole, la mondialisation et le développement du réseau d’informations, tout le monde veut sa part du gâteau. A l’instar des élites du Sud, la bourgeoisie du Darfour réclame aujourd’hui un partage des richesses face à un gouvernement central qui monopolise le pouvoir et les ressources. Ce qui est spécifique à la crise du Darfour, c’est que ces contradictions ont été amplifiées et politisées à cause de l’engagement de la Chine au Soudan. Quel est le rôle de la Chine au Soudan? Après avoir découvert d’importants gisements pétroliers, Chevron a dû quitter le Soudan pour deux raisons. Premièrement, le pays était redevenu instable à cause de la seconde guerre civile. Deuxièmement, si les Etats-Unis avaient jusqu’ici entretenu d’excellentes relations avec le Soudan, le nouveau régime islamiste mis en place par Omar al-Bachir en 1989 lui était carrément hostile. Le pétrole soudanais échappait donc aux intérêts américains. La Chine est alors venue vers le Soudan avec le message suivant : « Je vais vous acheter vos matières premières aux prix en vigueur sur le marché international ». Cette situation présente un avantage comparatif à la fois pour la Chine et le Soudan. La première peut disposer des ressources dont elle a besoin pour son développement tandis que le second n'est plus obligé d'emprunter de l'argent aux institutions internationales. Mais cette implication chinoise en Afrique est une première historique. C’est ce qui effraie les impérialistes européens et américains. Qu’entendez-vous par avantage comparatif ? David Ricardo, le plus important des économistes bourgeois après Adam Smith, a développé la théorie de ce qu’il appelle l’avantage comparatif. Ce concept a été appliqué par le Fond Monétaire International et la Banque Mondiale dans les pays du Tiers-Monde durant les cinquante dernières années. Imaginons que je sois un pays qui produit des bananes. Le FMI vient me trouver et dit : « Vous produisez des bananes, vous avez une certaine connaissance sur ce sujet et vous avez développé des ressources humaines autour de cela : vous êtes spécialisé! Au plus vous serez spécialisé dans les bananes, au plus vous réduirez vos coûts de production, au plus vous serez efficace. Si vous suivez cette méthode, vous aurez un avantage comparatif sur le marché et votre pays se développera. ». J’augmente donc ma production de bananes mais mon voisin fait la même chose. Le résultat, c’est qu’il y a trop de bananes sur le marché! Le consommateur ne va pas en manger nuit et jour. Par conséquent, les prix s’effondrent. Voilà la méthode d’un docteur ayant un tas de patients et prescrivant le même médicament à tout le monde, quelque soit leur maladie. Nous devons maintenant considérer ceci : quand l’URSS et le bloc de l’Est se sont effondrés en 1990, l’impérialisme occidental pensait pouvoir dominer le monde entier. Mais la Chine a commencé à devenir plus forte économiquement. Aujourd’hui, elle a besoin de tout, des bananes aux cacahuètes en passant par le pétrole et les métaux. Ce nouveau géant vient donc à la rencontre des pays riches en ressources avec la volonté d’acheter leurs matières premières aux prix du marché. Evidemment, tous les pays africains qui regorgent d’abondantes ressources vont se tourner vers la Chine. N’importe quel businessman voulant maximiser ses profits le ferait! Le capitalisme s’est déplacé en Asie et l’Afrique doit s’adapter à cette nouvelle situation. L’Afrique a toujours été la chasse gardée de l’Occident. C’est un grand changement. Et c’est le cœur du problème. L’Occident a une position très ambiguë sur ce sujet. D’un côté, il tire énormément de profits de son partenariat économique avec la Chine. De l’autre côté, il n’accepte pas que l’Afrique traite avec le géant asiatique. En effet, les puissances impérialistes ne veulent pas perdre leur domination sur le riche continent africain. Face à ce dilemme, l’Occident a une attitude totalement honteuse : plutôt que d’affronter ouvertement la Chine, il exerce des pressions sur les gouvernements africains qui ont échappé à son contrôle et exploite les crises humanitaires pour ses propres intérêts. Comment l’Occident tente-t-il d’empêcher le Soudan de commercer avec la Chine? En cherchant à déstabiliser le régime. Et pour ce faire, il applique la règle d’or du colonialisme : «diviser pour régner». Durant la deuxième guerre civile, les Etats-Unis ont financièrement soutenu l’Armée Populaire de Libération du Soudan, un mouvement rebelle du Sud. Comme ce mouvement recevait de l’argent et des armes et que le gouvernement avait pour sa part modernisé son armée grâce aux rentrées pétrolières, le conflit dura plus de vingt années pour finalement prendre fin en 2005. La deuxième guerre civile se terminait à peine que débutait la crise du Darfour. Il est vrai que les contradictions entre les tribus nomades et les fermiers sédentaires d’une part, et la bourgeoisie régionale et l’autorité centrale d’autre part, conduisent à des affrontements meurtriers au Darfour. Il est vrai aussi que sur ce problème, le gouvernement soudanais a adopté une attitude militariste plutôt que de privilégier la voie du dialogue. Mais les puissances impérialistes amplifient le problème afin de mobiliser l’opinion internationale et déstabiliser le régime soudanais. Vous devez comprendre que si demain, Khartoum annonce qu’il arrête de commercer avec la Chine, plus personne ne parlera du Darfour. Les grandes puissances occidentales pourraient ainsi éviter une confrontation directe avec la Chine et garder la mainmise sur les ressources du continent africain? Tout à fait. Leur attitude est honteuse. En fait, ces pays impérialistes sont racistes. Depuis la colonisation au 19ème siècle, ils ont toujours empêché l’Afrique de se développer pour garder le contrôle de ses ressources. Mais pourquoi ce continent ne pourrait-il pas commercer avec la Chine alors que l’Occident en fait autant? Pourquoi les enfants d’Afrique ne pourraient-ils pas avoir de bonnes chaussures, des tables bien servies et des écoles performantes? Les puissances néocoloniales maintiennent le plus riche continent du monde dans le sous-développement pour garder le contrôle de ses richesses. La mobilisation pour le Darfour est importante aux Etats-Unis. Beaucoup d’associations juives se sont également impliquées dans cette campagne. Pourquoi ? Les raisons de cette implication sont essentiellement historiques. Dans le conflit qui a longtemps opposé l’Etat juif à l’Egypte, le Soudan occupe une position stratégique. En effet, le Nil passe par ce pays avant de gagner l’Egypte. Aujourd’hui, Tel-Aviv et le Caire entretiennent d’excellentes relations mais compte tenu de la sympathie de la population égyptienne pour la cause palestinienne, cette entente pourrait se dégrader. Dans une stratégie à long-terme, Israël sait que ses intérêts stratégiques au Soudan sont importants. En effet, si elle peut contrôler l’eau du Nil, elle peut contrôler l’Egypte. Lors de la première guerre civile soudanaise, Israël soutenait déjà le mouvement rebelle du Sud Anyanya dans l’optique d’affaiblir le président égyptien Nasser. Aujourd’hui, alors que deux mouvements du Darfour ont déjà signé un accord de paix avec Khartoum, Israël soutient le dernier groupe qui continue à lutter. C’est pourquoi le leader libyen Kadhafi a déclaré que la crise du Darfour n’était plus un problème soudanais mais un problème israélien! Vous devez aussi savoir que les associations sionistes qui sont impliquées dans cette campagne de mobilisation pour le Darfour aux Etats-Unis avaient la volonté initiale de créer un front commun avec les associations afro-américaines. Parmi celles-ci, la Nation de l’Islam et son leader Louis Farrakhan se sont rendus au Soudan, ont analysé la situation sur place et ont eu une discussion appuyée avec le gouvernement et son président Omar al-Bachir. L’organisation a finalement rendu sa propre décision : tout cela n’a rien à voir avec les Noirs et les Arabes. C’est pourquoi, le projet d’alliance voulu par les associations juives s’est effondré. Après que la Cour Pénale Internationale ait émis un mandat d’arrêt contre le président Omar al-Bachir, les réactions sont plutôt divisées. Les Etats-Unis et la France ont déclaré que le président soudanais devait être jugé. Pour leur part, la Chine et les pays arabes estiment que cela pourrait déstabiliser le pays encore plus. Je pense qu’une Cour qui n’écoute que la musique qu’elle veut bien entendre n’est pas une Cour. Laissez-moi vous donner quelques exemples. Le peuple somalien a toujours été déchiré par la guerre. Mais au début de l’année 2006, une intifada a été menée sous l’impulsion du Conseil Islamique. Les insurgés ont réussi à vaincre de façon pacifique les seigneurs de guerre. Ils ont restauré la paix dans une grande partie du pays. Le commerce reprit, les paysans retournèrent travailler dans leurs fermes et la communication au sein de la société se développa. L’espoir revenait! Mais six mois plus tard, le régime fantoche d’Ethiopie, manipulé par la CIA et les néoconservateurs américains, a envahi la Somalie. Le conflit a déplacé deux millions de Somaliens ; 60.000 ont été tués ; certains se sont noyés dans l’Océan Indien alors qu’ils tentaient de rejoindre le Yémen ; l’Ethiopie a même utilisé des bombes au napalm contre des civils à Mogadiscio et a détruit la majeure partie de cette ville ! Pourquoi aucun média n’a-t-il alerté l’opinion sur ce drame? Pourquoi n’y a-t-il pas de Cour contre les auteurs de cette tragédie? L’Ouganda a détruit le Congo équatorial et pillé son or. Pour justifier sa légitimité, la Cour a arrêté Jean-Pierre Bemba, un petit poisson. Mais l’auteur de ce plan désastreux, le gouvernement ougandais, est toujours libre. Actuellement, ses troupes tuent des civils en Somalie. Pourquoi n’y a-t-il pas de Cour contre eux? En 1998, l’Ethiopie déclencha une guerre en Erythrée. Dans un style totalement nazi, elle s’appropria les biens des Ethiopiens ayant des origines érythréennes. Plusieurs milliers d’Erythréens furent envoyés dans des camps de concentration où beaucoup succombèrent de la malaria et d’autres infections. Pourquoi n’y a-t-il pas de Cour contre ces criminels ? Un million d’Irakiens ont été tués. Quatre millions ont été déplacés. Un Etat moderne a été détruit en toute illégalité. Pourquoi n’y a-t-il pas de cour contre Cheney, Rumsfeld ou Bush ? L’industrie diamantaire d’Afrique du Sud ravage la Sierra-Leone. C’est elle et personne d’autre qui a porté l’ancien président libérien Charles Taylor devant un tribunal international sur base de fausses accusations ce qui laisse perplexe sur l’intégrité de cette justice. Des crimes sont pourtant bien commis au Darfour. Même si la CPI n’est pas impartiale, Omar al-Bachir ne doit-il pas être jugé ? Je ne conteste pas que des gens se font tuer au Darfour. Mais parler de génocide est une exagération d’une Cour impérialiste qui n’est pas neutre. Tous les partis politiques soudanais ont jugé que ce mandat d’arrêt allait à l’encontre de la souveraineté du pays. Le jugement d’Omar al-Bachir doit être laissé aux Africains. Le fait est que la CPI est là pour mettre la pression sur le président afin qu’il arrête de commercer avec la Chine et qu’il se tourne vers l’Occident. Ca ne marchera probablement pas avec le Soudan, mais c’est aussi un signal lancé aux autres pays qui seraient tentés de suivre cet exemple. Les paysans soudanais sont confrontés à de gros problèmes de sécheresse. Le gouvernement ne peut-il pas utiliser les rentrées pétrolières pour construire des structures d’irrigation? De manière générale, pourquoi un pays, que certains comparent à l’Arabie saoudite pour ses ressources pétrolières, est-il si pauvre? En Europe, vous avez des pays pauvres avec des gens riches. A l’inverse, le Soudan est un pays riche avec des gens pauvres. Il est vrai que le gouvernement soudanais aurait pu allouer l’argent du pétrole de manière efficace mais le fait est qu’il n’a pas de solution progressiste pour tout le pays. De son côté, la bourgeoisie régionale est fortement touchée par la corruption (1). Depuis l’accord de Naivasha qui a marqué la fin de la deuxième guerre civile, l’autorité du Sud a reçu six milliards de dollars au titre de répartition équitable des richesses. Mais avec tout cet argent, ils n’ont même pas construit une école! Le Soudan a donc besoin d’une véritable réponse, mais nous ne pourrons pas la donner nous-même car il revient au peuple soudanais d’arriver à une telle conclusion. La solution n’est-elle pas dans le fédéralisme ou le confédéralisme? Cette solution a été défendue par les Etats-Unis pour mettre un terme au conflit avec le Sud et l’est aujourd’hui pour résoudre la crise du Darfour. Un référendum devrait bientôt déterminer le statut de ces deux régions. L’intérêt pour les puissances occidentales est de taille : si elles ne peuvent pas négocier l’exploitation du pétrole avec Khartoum, elles le feront avec des régions autonomes. Mais le fédéralisme n’est pas le remède miracle à tous les problèmes politiques dans le monde. En Belgique, trois communautés linguistiques cohabitent : les néerlandophones, les francophones et les germanophones. Le fédéralisme a été établi sur base des langues dans ce pays ce qui a eu pour effet de créer des frontières. La Belgique a un petit territoire mais elle compte six gouvernements, 550 parlementaires et 55 ministres. C’est le nombre par habitant le plus important dans le monde! Malgré cette armada politique, le pays connait régulièrement des problèmes communautaires. En Suisse par contre, le fédéralisme est basé sur des cantons ce qui rend le système beaucoup plus efficace. Alors que 75% de la population est germanophone, le parlement de ce pays s’exprime en français sans aucun complexe. Et voilà où nous en sommes : la bourgeoisie soudanaise veut un modèle à la belge. Comment peut-on sortir de la crise au Soudan ? Le Soudan est un pays très riche qui a reçu tout ce que la Nature pouvait donner. Mais pour son malheur, il n’existe aucun mouvement qui puisse rassembler la population autour de la construction d’un Etat démocratique, uni et égalitaire ; un Soudan sans aucun chauvinisme ni discrimination ; un Soudan qui utiliserait toutes ses ressources pour bâtir un avenir solide à son peuple. Les partis actuels, y compris le régime militaire, prônent toutes sortes de slogans : socialisme soudanais, arabe ou islamique, nationalisation ou dénationalisation… Mais ils sont incapables de porter et d’intégrer le pays sur le chemin de la démocratie moderne et progressiste. La bourgeoisie qui dirige le pays fait passer ses propres intérêts avant ceux de la nation. Cependant, la crise économique et la chute du prix des matières premières ne vont plus faire rentrer autant d’argent que par le passé. Le nombre de pauvres va encore augmenter. Vous avez là les conditions permettant l’émergence de ce dont le Soudan a le plus besoin : une résistance progressiste et démocratique. Note (1) http://www.southsudannation.com/pres%20afwerki%20interview4.htm Mohamed Hassan recommande également les lectures suivantes: - Oil in Sudan: Facts and impact on Sudanese Domestic and International Relations - Oil in Darfur? Special Ops in Somalia?

President Gives a Short Lifeline to Carmakers

March 31, 2009

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and BILL VLASIC

WASHINGTON — President Obama delivered an ultimatum to General Motors and Chrysler on Monday, telling them to adopt radical changes in short order or face bankruptcy — a move that came after a series of somber discussions in which he concluded that a controlled bankruptcy might be the best way to reorganize the two ailing auto giants.

In the end, the president decided to throw the companies a short lifeline. He gave G.M. 60 days and Chrysler one month to avert bankruptcy and restructure on their own.

But during that period, Mr. Obama warned on Monday, the automakers will have to drastically reshape their businesses in a way that experts say will severely shrink them.

For G.M., the president’s decision means not only the loss of its chief executive, Rick Wagoner, who was forced out as part of the deal, but also some tough negotiations with the United Automobile Workers and bondholders, who have thus far balked at the company’s demands.

Now the union will be asked to make even bigger concessions on a new wage and benefits contract and health benefits for retirees. The bondholders will most likely be forced to accept a deep discount on the price of their debt as well as agree to take G.M. stock in lieu of debt repayments.

Chrysler, meanwhile, must hurry up a merger deal with the Italian automaker Fiat.

The Obama administration has concluded that Chrysler is not viable as a stand-alone company, and is giving the automaker until April 30 to complete the Fiat merger or face a cutoff of taxpayer help.

If the merger is successful, the administration will consider giving Chrysler $6 billion in additional taxpayer aid.

Mr. Obama decided early on that simply letting the companies fail was not an option, his advisers said. But faced with what one senior official called “no good options,” the president struggled to reconcile his conclusion that G.M. and Chrysler were not viable with his determination to save an industry that he called “an emblem of the American spirit.”

“Year after year, decade after decade, we’ve seen problems papered over and tough choices kicked down the road, even as foreign competitors outpaced us,” Mr. Obama said in announcing his decision at the White House. “Well, we have reached the end of that road.”

While Michigan lawmakers privately balked at the president’s decision to cite bankruptcy, analysts said that by raising the specter of bankruptcy for the two companies, Mr. Obama might have made it easier for both to win concessions. And at least one lawmaker seemed to agree.

“They hopefully will see that they have a pretty stark choice in terms of working something out,” said Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, who learned of the plan Sunday night when the president called him and other Michigan lawmakers from the Oval Office. “Their option is either to take a haircut or a bath.”

Indeed, on Monday, Fiat’s chief executive released a statement indicating he was eager to forge an alliance with Chrysler, and Mr. Obama said Fiat had committed to building fuel-efficient cars and engines in the United States.

G.M. said in a statement that it would “take whatever steps are necessary to successfully restructure the company” even if it meant a court-supervised process.

“It’s really about keeping the pressure on the parties, and the government’s doing a good job of that,” said Van Conway, a partner with Conway MacKenzie & Dunleavy, a turnaround consulting firm in Birmingham, Mich. “As unfair as it is to take any concession in business, you’ve got to take the best alternative you’re given in a situation.”

The United Automobile Workers did not respond to several requests for comment on Monday.

The talk of bankruptcy rattled the overall stock market. The Dow Jones industrial average declined 254.16 points, or 3.27 percent, to close at 7,522.02. G.M.’s shares also took a beating, closing down 92 cents at $2.70.

Throughout his bid for the presidency, Mr. Obama talked in stern tones about how the nation’s auto industry needed to improve its ways. His statement from the White House on Monday — an aggressive move, particularly from a Democratic president, to force the industry to revamp itself or lose government aid — represented an extraordinary moment in American manufacturing history, and another weighty moment in a presidency that has been filled with them.

The internal debate that led to the announcement culminated in two back-to-back 45-minute sessions in the Oval Office last Thursday. Members of Mr. Obama’s auto task force, led by two former investment bankers, Steven Rattner and Ronald Bloom, presented the president with what one senior administration official called “an incredibly difficult and painful set of decisions.”

Perhaps the thorniest was the question of bankruptcy. Like his predecessor, former President George W. Bush, Mr. Obama felt that a chaotic bankruptcy would be disastrous for the companies and the broader economy.

But the task force was considering another idea: the prospect of using what the administration official called “the quick, surgical legal tools that exist in our bankruptcy code” to restructure the companies in a clean and efficient way. The problem was how to explain it to a public that is spooked by the mention of the word bankruptcy.

After debating the ramifications and risks, Mr. Obama concluded he had to put the bankruptcy option on the table and discuss it, as he did Monday.

“What I’m not talking about is a process where a company is simply broken up, sold off and no longer exists,” Mr. Obama said. “We’re not talking about that. And what I’m not talking about is a company that’s stuck in court for years.”

But Michigan lawmakers were deeply skeptical when Mr. Obama telephoned them Sunday evening from the Oval Office to disclose his plans.

Representative John D. Dingell, the Michigan Democrat who is the longest-serving member of the House, warned the president that bankruptcy was “like a war or marriage; it’s easy to get into, hard to get out of,” according to one participant in the discussion.

At the Oval Office session, Mr. Obama also weighed another move that did not sit well with the Michigan delegation — the decision to push Mr. Wagoner, the G.M. chief executive, into involuntary retirement.

Senator Levin said the lawmakers, while saddened, did not challenge the president.

“He had made the decision that this kind of change was necessary to kind of signal to the public that there was going to be a real effort to make a fresh start,” Mr. Levin said. “There wasn’t much point in arguing whether or not it was fair or unfair, wise or unwise. It was a decision that he didn’t ask us about, he informed us of.”

Mr. Wagoner will not receive a severance payment but instead will get a pension and other benefits worth about $23 million, to be paid in installments over the rest of his life, according to Equilar, a compensation consulting firm.

Sheryl Gay Stolberg reported from Washington and Bill Vlasic from Detroit.

Detroit Dissonance:Tough Love for Carmakers, Pillows for Wall St

.

By Eugene Robinson
Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A17

Through a series of logical decisions, the Obama administration has maneuvered itself into an illogical and uncomfortable place. The president is telling Detroit to shape up or die while at the same time politely asking Wall Street, whose recklessness and greed caused this economic crisis, if it would be so kind as to accept another heaping helping of taxpayer funds.

General Motors and Chrysler have been ailing companies for decades. But they wouldn't be in extremis, hemorrhaging money like never before, if consumer demand hadn't fallen off a cliff. And why did people suddenly stop buying cars? Because they either can't get credit or don't think it wise to make major purchases with the economy in such dire straits.

Both the credit crunch and the reluctance of consumers to spend what money they have left are the direct result of Wall Street's atrocious misbehavior. Yet the administration's plan for rescuing the banking sector involves generous inducements, big subsidies and the opportunity for wealthy investors to become much wealthier while assuming very little risk. There are reasons for structuring the bank bailout this way, and there are reasons to take a get-tough attitude with the auto companies. But the juxtaposition is galling -- and, for many autoworkers, potentially devastating.

"We cannot continue to excuse poor decisions," President Obama said yesterday as he laid down the law to Detroit. But it's hard to reconcile that declaration with policies that seem to excuse, if not reward, unspeakably poor decisions made on Wall Street.

I can't argue with the administration's decision to force GM chief executive Rick Wagoner to resign. It was encouraging, even, to see the White House employ that kind of muscle, given the fact that the president now has to oversee so much of the economy. But shouldn't the first public flogging have involved one of the bankers who got us into this predicament? On Friday, the day when Wagoner got his walking papers, the biggest cheeses on Wall Street went to the White House for a cordial meeting. All still had their jobs when they left.

Wagoner's crime was in not getting GM out of an untenable situation that he inherited, though it should be noted that he has been with the company for more than 30 years, plenty long enough to be considered part of the problem. His defenders say that in recent years he demonstrated that he had seen the light about what kind of cars Americans want to buy, and they also point to his success in gaining market share for GM abroad. Maybe there was no way for him to get the company out from under its crushing "legacy" costs for retiree benefits. But if he made any headway at all at changing the company's culture and turning GM into a lean, green, carmaking machine, it's not evident.

Obama gave GM a 60-day deadline to come up with some kind of radical restructuring plan that would ensure a viable future for the company. That was a better deal than he offered hapless Chrysler, which has just 30 days to complete a merger with Italy's Fiat or face dissolution.

Given that Daimler-Benz couldn't make a go of Chrysler, it's hard to imagine that Fiat would do better -- assuming that a deal between the firms can even be reached. The company that gave us the minivan, one of the most successful innovations in the history of the industry, is probably toast.

GM, on the other hand, has what amounts to a guarantee from the White House that it will continue in some form, even if it fails to reinvent itself before the deadline and has to go through bankruptcy. In any event, the GM of the future is likely to be smaller than the GM of today. It is almost certain that plants will have to be closed and product lines discontinued.

Maybe this is the least disruptive solution for GM's workforce. It is worth pointing out, however, that the $17.4 billion the federal government has lent GM and Chrysler since the bottom fell out of the automotive market last fall is dwarfed by the more than $1 trillion we've poured into the financial sector.

Our tough-love message to the banks: Would you mind, possibly, lending some of that money we gave you? If it's not too much trouble, that is. And would you like another pillow?

The writer will answer questions at 1 p.m. today at http://www.washingtonpost.com. His e-mail address is eugenerobinson@washpost.com.

The Wheels Are Off:Stop Pouring Money Into GM and Chrysler

By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A17

When I was around 12, I was a paperboy for the now-defunct Long Island Press. One Thursday, when the paper was heavy with shopping inserts, a storm hit, and my papers and I wound up in a puddle. My customers would not pay for a paper not delivered, and the Press insisted on billing for those I had received. The CFO of my company, a.k.a. my father, took one look at my books and pronounced me bankrupt. He would say the same thing about General Motors and Chrysler.

This is not a complicated concept. GM and Chrysler do not have the money to pay their bills. They are, in fact, deeply in debt and have almost depleted the $17.4 billion the federal government -- which is to say, you and I -- lent them only last December. Now they are asking for billions of dollars more -- $16.6 billion for GM and $5 billion for Chrysler. Life itself instructs that it will not end there.

The Obama administration has warned both companies that it may let them sink into bankruptcy. In the meantime, though, more money is probably on the way -- along with some cosmetic management changes. Rick Wagoner, GM's chief executive of blessed memory, has already been pushed out, and the company's directors are heading in the same direction. Still, somebody -- God only knows who -- is supposed to come up with yet another plan to save GM and do it in 60 days. Maybe they'll outsource it.

It beats me whether either company can be saved. Both have proved themselves to be singularly incompetent over the years, but lately, some brain waves have been detected. GM, in particular, has been developing energy-efficient cars and, according to the administration's auto task force, could survive if it further cuts its expenses. Chrysler, in contrast, can survive only if it more or less merges with Fiat -- a company once renowned for poor management. See: Anything can happen.

Here I must introduce Tim Geithner, the hapless-cum-brilliant secretary of the Treasury. He not only proves that conventional wisdom is a half-truth but that in certain matters, it is best to be first. Geithner got confirmed by the Senate even though he had failed to pay some taxes; Tom Daschle later had to withdraw his Cabinet nomination for a similar offense. As always, timing is everything.

So it is with this auto industry bailout. It comes too late. It comes after the government has substantially taken over some big banks and that financial house of horrors called AIG. Taxpayers are now in hock for trillions of dollars, some of it incurred to bail out the thieves and rascals who bought $1,000 bottles of Cristal champagne at New York clubs or put the GDP of small nations up their noses. With the various stimulus packages, we are adding $9.3 trillion in debt over the next 10 years.

The auto industry is not only late to the table, it comes with a bad rep. We may not understand what AIG did -- what's a credit-default swap, anyway? -- but we sure as hell know what GM did: It made a lot of lousy cars. So did Ford and Chrysler. They made cars with utter contempt for the customer. The industry at one time even opposed seat belts and air bags, and it designed cars that were not safe. I know things have changed, but I remember. I remember.

Finally, we have yet another application of the Geithner Rule. Recall his confused explanations of how he learned of those AIG bonuses. Those of us who cannot find our keys in the morning ought to have nothing but sympathy for a man who is now running a large part of the American economy. Of course, he might not have been paying attention. He can't pay attention to everything.

This is where bankruptcy comes in. It slows things down. It's a mechanism. It's a process. It takes things step by step. It has been designed for situations such as the one the auto manufacturers face. It puts things into court and out of the political arena, where both the United Auto Workers and the Big Three can play the lobbying game. Bankruptcy can save the industry.

Is there a downside? Sure. No one knows whether anyone will buy the cars of a bankrupt company. (The government could guarantee the warranties.) Will it further hurt the economy? Probably, but who really knows? But bankruptcy acknowledges a reality -- GM and Chrysler are broke. I wish them luck -- but no more of my money.

cohenr@washpost.com

Michelle's Image: From Off-Putting To Spot-On

By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 31, 2009; C01

At first, they didn't like the way she was talking about her husband's dirty socks. Then, they said she always looked angry. Later, they questioned her patriotism when she commented that she only recently became proud of her country. They even made hay over her biceps when she dared show up sleeveless for her husband's address to Congress in January.

Now, two months into her husband's presidency, as Michelle Obama embarks on her maiden official overseas trip, the first lady is enjoying a second look from the American public -- particularly from those who were put off by her as a candidate's wife, but are warming to her as the president's wife.

A Washington Post-ABC News survey conducted over the past few days shows a dramatic turnaround: Her favorability ratings are at 76 percent, up 28 points since summer. The number of people who view her negatively has plummeted. Her most striking inroads have come among Republicans who viewed her negatively last year, perhaps in part because of comments she made about feeling proud of her country for the first time.

Selected poll respondents re-interviewed yesterday said their views were positively influenced by her focus on children and family, her devotion to her own family, and by the symbolic gesture of her planting the first White House vegetable garden since Eleanor Roosevelt.

Still, voters articulated complex feelings about her as they process the many facets of her life -- middle-class upbringing, Ivy League education, professional, wife, mother of two, African American woman.

Listen to Maxine Furlong, a Republican from Upstate New York who initially was not a fan:

"Eventually, she will be a great first lady," said Furlong, who's 34 and white. "She definitely has this black woman's attitude. . . . White girls have more insecurities, which is why they care more about being ingratiating. I'm not saying this is a bad thing -- I like that about her -- but she's just a very strong woman and that can come off as condescending." Accompanying her husband to the G20 summit in London, Michelle Obama will branch out on several solo stops overseas, not unlike her inner-city Washington excursions as first lady. In London, she'll visit a school for underprivileged girls, where students are encouraged to "dream without limits" and English is a second language for many.

She is increasingly referred to as a role model, and seems to be evolving into an iconic presence, like Princess Diana and Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, whose every fashion choice and mannerism is imitated. The British media, in fact, have likened her to both women.

In interviews with The Post, voters who earlier this month responded to a Washington Post-ABC News survey about President Obama at first said they haven't been following her, and didn't know what she's been doing. But with a little prodding, they demonstrated that they knew quite a bit about her official activities. While most offered positive reviews of her performance, almost everyone commented that she had not yet adopted any one cause as her own, and recommended that she do so.

Republicans said she no longer looks as "angry" as she did during the campaign. Democrats who were inclined to like her, said she seemed happier and more relaxed. "My feeling is that she was ambivalent about him running and then got over it," said Democrat Nancy Thompson, a small business owner and freelance writer from Washington state.

Michelle Obama's visits to homeless shelters and soup kitchens have not gone unnoticed. This month, she dispatched an army of famous women throughout the city's troubled schools to inspire students. "I really like that she's out there trying to encourage kids to make something of themselves," said Bill Mazzilli, a Florida independent who voted for John McCain.

Said Randy Levensalor, an independent from Colorado who leans Republican, "I don't see the angry Michelle anymore."

At times during the campaign, Michelle Obama was considered a political liability. She came across to some as hard-edged, and at first, didn't seem gung-ho about her husband's candidacy. Political opponents and right-leaning media -- who carefully steered clear of racial references when it came to Barack Obama, had no qualms about channeling race through his wife. During one Fox News show, Bill O'Reilly asked if she was an "angry black woman."

She was criticized when, in her early presidential campaign speeches, she complained that her husband didn't pick up his dirty socks and was "stinky" when he awoke. "Forgive me if I'm a little stunned by this whole Barack Obama thing," she would say. Her audiences laughed, but in the retelling, the references sounded like put-downs. In the heat of the 2008 campaign last February, she hit her lowest point when she told a Milwaukee crowd, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country, because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback." Her detractors had a field day -- and Democrats cringed. The comment came to define her.

"Until the Democratic convention, it was largely what people knew about her," said White House senior adviser David Axelrod. "Once she was able to tell her story, her numbers moved overnight. "I don't mean by a little, I mean by a lot."

Axelrod acknowledged that Michelle Obama, 45, may in fact seem more content because she has her husband in the same house after four years on the road -- first in Washington when he was a senator, and then on the campaign trail. "As with any family, it's better when they have the ability to reunite and be together. . . . They eat dinner together almost every night," he said.

First ladies can be typecast fairly quickly, and the public has historically handed them tall orders. They are expected to be refined but not elitist, smart but not opinionated, and passionate about those less fortunate. Since moving into the White House, Michelle Obama has met many of those expectations for numerous people.

At first calling herself mom-in-chief and emphasizing that her first priority was getting her children settled, she has since taken on community and political projects, and even dared to have some fun by arranging for the White House fountain to spout green water for Saint Patrick's Day. She told one interviewer she was worried about her hips and denied being pregnant to another. She pushed for her husband's stimulus package as she made an unprecedented tour of the federal agencies. And she has made an unexpected commitment to the capital, intent on offering hope to inner-city girls.

"You know, what I want you all to know is that there is no magic to being here . . . my parents were working-class people. My father was a city worker," she told students recently. "We didn't have a lot of money. We lived on the South Side of Chicago. I lived in the same house that my mother still lives in now."

Lynne Klaczak, a Florida Republican sees Obama as "a thoroughly modern woman. She's like, 'If you ask me my opinion I'm going to give it.' I don't have a problem with that," she said. "I do think all this focus on her fashion distracts from real issues about women and families where she could make an impact."

She hasn't won over everyone. "I don't much care for her and it has nothing to do with her color or race or anything," said Beverly Watson, 61, a Tennessee Republican. "She just seems to have a big attitude, like she's just above everyone else."

But voters repeatedly said Michelle Obama seems like a neighbor -- just a working mom juggling many of the same issues that plague every household.

Kelly Lavalle, a 30-year-old financial adviser from Connecticut, is a Republican who voted for John McCain but today sees Michelle Obama as a modern role model. "Working mothers can relate to the fact that she can incorporate a sense of style with her life as a mother and a serious professional," said Lavalle.

"You know," said New York Republican Maxine Furlong. "They remind me of just a regular couple who won the lottery."

Blame for Downturn Not Fixed on Obama

6 in 10 Back His Handling of Economy

By Jon Cohen and Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, March 31, 2009; A01

The number of Americans who believe that the nation is headed in the right direction has roughly tripled since Barack Obama's election, and the public overwhelmingly blames the excesses of the financial industry, rather than the new president, for turmoil in the economy, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

At this early stage in his presidency, Obama continues to benefit from a broadly held perception that others should bear the bulk of responsibility for the severe economic problems that confront his administration. Americans see plenty of offenders, but only about a quarter blame the president and his team for an economy that's in the ditch.

Despite the increasing optimism about the future, the nation's overall mood remains gloomy, and doubts are rising about some of the administration's prescriptions for the economic woes. Independents are less solidly behind Obama than they have been, fewer Americans now express confidence that his economic programs will work, barely half of the country approves of how the president is dealing with the federal budget deficit, and the political climate is once again highly polarized.

The percentage of Americans in the new poll who said the country is on the right track still stands at just 42 percent, but that is the highest percentage saying so in five years and marks a sharp turnabout from last fall, when as many as nine in 10 said the country was heading in the wrong direction. Fifty-seven percent now consider the nation as moving on the wrong track.

Overall perceptions about the country parallel a rapid increase in the percentage of Americans who say the economy is improving. For the first time since late 2004, the gap between the numbers saying the economy is getting better and those saying it's getting worse is in the single digits (27 percent to 36 percent).

Two-thirds of Americans approve of the way Obama is handling the country's top job, and six in 10 give him good marks on issue No. 1, the flagging economy. Those figures are little changed from last month. But he receives lower marks for dealing with the federal budget deficit after submitting a plan that would see continued huge deficits over the next decade. Fifty-two percent back Obama on his approach to the deficit, with the public split about evenly over whether belt-tightening or big increases in spending should be used to try to improve the economy.

There is now a pronounced divergence between Democratic and Republican perceptions of the economy, a bigger partisan divide than the one that occurred 16 years ago after Bill Clinton took office. In early 1993, people in both parties were about equally likely to see the economy as improving, but now the number of Republicans who say it is souring is more than double that of Democrats.

A sharp rise in optimism has occurred among Democrats, who are about three times as likely to approve of the country's course as they were just before Obama's inauguration. Independents, too, are more optimistic, with twice as many feeling positive as in mid-January. Among Republicans, there has not been significant movement in either direction.

Obama's overall approval rating among independents has dipped six points, to 61 percent, and fewer than half, 45 percent, said he is doing a good job of handling the deficit. His approval rating among Republicans has dropped seven points, to 30 percent.

Overall, almost two in three Americans, 64 percent, said they have confidence that Obama's economic policies will improve the economy, but that number has dropped since he took office and began to implement his ideas. Before his inauguration, 72 percent were confident that his economic agenda would lead to a recovery. Now, after two months of vigorous debate about his stimulus package and ambitious budget blueprint, confidence has decreased by 13 points among independents and by a similar amount among Republicans.

At the same time, 62 percent see Obama as a "new-style," fiscally responsible Democrat; fewer, about a third, label him an "old-style" Democrat oriented toward taxing and spending. Fifty-seven percent of independents consider Obama part of a new breed, the same percentage that said so of Clinton at the start of his first term.

The findings suggest that the public continues to give Obama considerable latitude as he attempts to jump-start the economy, but public patience may be limited. The coming debate over his budget, where he faces both Democratic and Republican resistance to some of his major priorities, should produce a more definitive first-year judgment on his economic program and his presidency. Clinton's ratings fell his first summer in office as he pushed through a budget and economic plan over solid Republican opposition.

The telephone poll of 1,000 randomly selected adults was conducted from Thursday through Sunday. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus three percentage points.

When it comes to assessing responsibility for the nation's economic plight, 80 percent said they put a "great deal" or a "good amount" of blame on banks and other financial institutions for taking unnecessary risks. The same percentage said they blame large corporations for poor management decisions. About seven in 10 blame consumers for overextending themselves with debt and the Bush administration for not vigorously regulating the financial industry.

Criticism of the banks, large corporations and consumers is roughly comparable across the political spectrum. But there is clear disagreement over whether Obama bears any of the blame, with Republicans far more likely to say yes than are Democrats or independents. Republicans, however, were as apt to blame the Bush administration for lax regulation as they were to target Obama for not doing enough to fix the problems.

Obama maintains a strong hand in his dealings with congressional Republicans. The public prefers his approach to that of the Republicans by more than two to one. But the percentage of independents siding with Obama has dropped 12 points, to 50 percent. Many of those independents in the new poll said neither has the upper hand in the economic debate. About a quarter of independents align with the Republicans on this question.

At the same time, Republicans are somewhat splintered. One in five self-identified Republicans in the poll said neither Obama nor their party's congressional leadership has the edge on dealing with the economic situation.

One way the administration has sought to increase confidence in Obama's economic plans and campaign pledge of transparency was to launch Recovery.gov to allow people to track federal money spent on economic stimulus; 6 percent of Americans said they have visited the Web site.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

What rich countries gave in foreign aid last year

Giving more generously

Mar 31st 2009
From Economist.com

RICH countries in the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee gave $119.8 billion in foreign aid last year, according to preliminary estimates released on Monday March 30th. This is over 10% more than in 2007 and is the highest amount ever given. The 22 countries in the DAC devoted an average of 0.47% of GDP to aid, up from 0.45% in 2007, though this is still considerably below the United Nations target of 0.7%. Despite the plight of the global economy, the OECD expects that aid will continue to grow, reaching $145.1 billion (in 2008 terms) in 2010.

Hundreds feared dead off coast of Libya

(CNN) -- Hundreds of people were feared dead on Tuesday after high winds and heavy seas capsized boats carrying African migrants heading for Europe off the coast of Libya.

A group of 227 migrants sits on a fishing vessel in Malta last month after arriving from Somalia.

"A tragedy has happened off the Libyan coast with at least two boats going down ... with obviously hundreds of people going down at sea," Jean-Philippe Chauzy with the International Organization for Migration in Geneva, Switzerland, said Tuesday, citing diplomatic officials in Tripoli and Libyan officials.

The U.N. refugee agency, aware of the reports, said they came at the "beginning of the smuggling season in the Mediterranean."

The vessels departed Sunday and were heading to southern Europe, Egypt's Middle East News Agency reported Monday. Official casualty figures were not immediately available from Libyan authorities, but Egypt's Foreign Ministry said only 20 people had been rescued including six Egyptians. Watch as migrants are feared drowned »

Reports of the incident varied widely. Egyptian state television said two fishing vessels carrying more than 600 people sank, while the Egyptian Foreign Ministry said one fishing boat went down with 257 people on board. Up to three boats sank, according to Chauzy.

Italian coast guards said an Italian tugboat working for an offshore oil companies in the Libyan seas picked up 350 people on Sunday and carried them to Libya with the help of the Italian military.

The migrants were believed to be headed for the Italian island of Lampedusa, where 37,000 landed last year, according to Chauzy, who said many African migrants converge on Libya en route to Europe.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees said details remain sketchy about what happened, but at least one boat among several vessels leaving Libya for Italy went down and hundreds are reported missing.

It said the incident occurred around 18 miles off the Libyan coast. It said some Egyptian nationals were rescued and bodies were recovered. Those aboard included Africans from the northern and the sub-Saharan regions.

High Commissioner Antonio Guterres on Tuesday said that the tragedy reflects the desperation of people to escape poverty and persecution.

"This tragic incident illustrates, once again, the dangers faced by people caught in mixed irregular movements of migrants and refugees in the Mediterranean and elsewhere which every year cost thousands of lives," the U.N. agency said

Obama's tough auto stance may include bankruptcy

By Kevin Krolicki and John Crawley Kevin Krolicki And John Crawley Mon Mar 30, 7:19 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama ordered General Motors Corp and Chrysler LLC to accelerate their survival efforts and brace for possible bankruptcy, saying neither company had done enough to justify the taxpayer money they were seeking.

Obama, describing the industry as a pillar of the economy, nevertheless gave GM and Chrysler a little more time and money to wring further concessions from workers, creditors and other stakeholders.

"We cannot, we must not, and we will not let our auto industry simply vanish," Obama said in White House remarks on Monday that were partly overshadowed by his decision to force out GM CEO Rick Wagoner.

U.S. stock indexes tumbled on the harsher-than-expected government stance, which could push GM and Chrysler closer to a bankruptcy court restructuring that could threaten equity holders and force deeper losses on creditors.

A committee representing GM bondholders planned to meet later on Monday to discuss a debt restructuring plan according to a source familiar with the situation.

With about $28 billion in debt to bondholders, the GM offer would translate into $2.2 billion in cash, $4.3 billion in debt and an additional stock-based payout in a recapitalized company that would all but wipe out current stockholders.

The Obama administration is giving GM 60 days to rework its survival plan. The new CEO of the biggest U.S. automaker said a court-supervised restructuring in bankruptcy might be necessary.

Chrysler's operation would be funded for the next 30 days as it works to complete an alliance with Italy's Fiat SpA, considered the No. 3 U.S. maker's best chance of surviving.

A source familiar with the negotiations said Fiat's stake in Chrysler could start as low as 20 percent.

GM had sought more than $16 billion in new aid after getting $13.4 billion in December, while Chrysler wanted $5 billion on top of $4 billion at the end of 2008.

GM shares closed 25 percent lower on Monday while stock of Ford Motor Co, which has not sought a bailout, closed down 2.8 percent. Chrysler is privately held by Cerberus Capital Management.

BANKRUPTCY OPTION

Jared Bernstein, a member of the government's autos task force, told Reuters Financial Television that a process that splits off the "bad" assets of GM or Chrysler, and sends those through a court-supervised bankruptcy, is a possibility, but U.S. officials have not determined yet to pursue that option.

"I don't think we're at that level of analysis until we see the kinds of changes and adjustments, concessions that are going to be made over the next 60 days," Bernstein said.

With U.S. auto sales near 30-year lows, Obama moved to reassure would-be car-buyers, saying the government would stand behind the warranties of GM and Chrysler. He also offered his support for a tax credit incentive of up to $5,000 to trade in older and less fuel-efficient vehicles.

The U.S. auto industry, including cash-strapped dealers and suppliers, has cut 400,000 jobs over the past year while losing billions of dollars.

Deutsche Bank economist Joseph LaVorgna said in a note on Monday that a GM and Chrysler bankruptcy could eliminate a million of the roughly 3 million auto sector jobs.

"As we have long feared, a bankruptcy -- even a controlled one -- would put downward pressure on production, further upward pressure on the unemployment rate and likely negatively impact consumer confidence," LaVorgna said.

PLANS REJECTED

Obama's auto task force rejected the turnaround plans submitted by GM and Chrysler following their December bailout.

"While Chrysler and GM are very different companies with very different paths forward, both need a fresh start to implement the restructuring plans they develop. That may mean using our bankruptcy code as a mechanism to help them restructure quickly and emerge stronger," Obama said.

The Obama administration did not say how much working capital the government would extend to GM and Chrysler over the coming weeks, but GM has said it needs $2 billion for April.

The U.S. government team raced to make the auto announcement before Obama heads to Europe for eight days of meetings surrounding the G20 conference.

Separately, Canada said plans set out by the Canadian branches of GM and Chrysler did not go far enough to make them viable, but it offered $3.2 billion in bridge loans to tide the companies over while they restructure.

Chrysler said on Monday it had reached agreement on a framework for an alliance with Fiat.

The next step for Chrysler is trying to reach cost-saving deals with creditors and the United Auto Workers (UAW), which could yield a $6 billion government investment if all restructuring and alliance pieces fall into place.

Fiat Chief Executive Sergio Marchionne said the talks with the Obama administration have been "tough but fair" and a deal will make Chrysler stronger and preserve U.S. jobs.

NEW GM CEO

GM's new chief executive, Fritz Henderson said the company would address elusive concession agreements with bondholders and the UAW, conditions crucial elements of its 60-day window extended by the government to prove viability.

"Our strong preference is to complete this restructuring out of court," Henderson said. "However, GM will take whatever steps are necessary to successfully restructure the company, which could include a court-supervised process."

Wagoner and GM's board had long argued that bankruptcy by any of the major automakers would threaten thousands of jobs, including suppliers, and could lead to a GM liquidation.

Wagoner, who had presided over the company's rapid decline in the past five years and had run the automaker since 2000, was forced out at the request of the Obama auto task force, headed by former investment banker Steve Rattner. A majority of GM's board will also be replaced.

Europe's No. 2 carmaker by sales, PSA Peugeot Citroen, ousted CEO Christian Streiff on Sunday, replacing him with former Corus head Philippe Varin from June 1. PSA Peugeot Citroen shares fell 7.7 percent in Europe.

(Additional reporting by Walden Siew, Poornima Gupta and David Bailey in Detroit; Jeff Mason in Washington, John McCrank in Ottawa; Helen Massy-Beresford and Estelle Shirbon in Paris; Gilles Castonguay in Milan and Angelika Gruber in Berlin)

(Editing by Patrick Fitzgibbons and Tim Dobbyn)

Obama bringing hefty agenda on European trip

By Caren Bohan Caren Bohan 1 hr 25 mins ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama heads to Europe on Tuesday with a hefty agenda for tackling the economic crisis and seeking support for his new Afghanistan strategy on a trip that will test his global leadership.

As he sets out for his first major foreign trip since taking office in January, Obama will shift his focus to international economics and diplomacy after a heavy emphasis on domestic issues.

He will stop first in London where he will attend summit of the Group of 20 major economies on Thursday. He will then travel to the French-German border for a NATO summit before stopping in the Czech Republic and Turkey.

His schedule includes meetings on the sidelines of the G20 with the leaders of Russia and China as well as other nations.

The Democratic U.S. president hopes to capitalize on a reservoir of goodwill because of the change in policies and style from his Republican predecessor, President George W. Bush, who was unpopular abroad.

Analysts said enthusiasm for Obama among the public in Europe will make for a positive tone in his meetings with allies such as British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

But the warm personal reception Obama will receive might not ease the way for his aims of prodding European allies to spend more to rescue the global economy and offer more troops and resources for the Afghanistan war.

"He's obviously got a lot of charisma and it's his first big meeting. And I think people tend to be very polite in these situations but there could also be a level of awkwardness there," said Simon Johnson, a former IMF chief economist who is now a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

One theme at the economic summit will be a view in many countries that the United States bears much of the blame for the global financial meltdown because of its lax financial regulation and the debt-fueled U.S. housing bubble.

AN ARRAY OF PROPOSALS

Obama has sought to distance himself from the Bush-era regulatory policy. He will take to the G20 an array of proposals to bring new oversight to hedge funds and other players and to give the U.S. government greater powers to deal with troubled financial firms deemed "too big to fail."

"It should be the case that he can walk in there and say, none of this was my fault and I'm cleaning up as fast as I can," said Johnson.

But the cloud of blame hanging over the United States is one reason Obama faces reluctance among Europeans to follow his lead and pursue big fiscal economic stimulus plans such as his $787 billion recovery package, Johnson said.

White House aides have sought to manage expectations before the G20 summit, telling reporters Washington is not necessarily asking countries to spend more right away.

P.J. Crowley, a former official in President Bill Clinton's White House, agreed that Obama will still have something of a honeymoon period with his European counterparts. But, similar to the G20 summit, there may be resistance at the NATO gathering to his pleas for support for Afghanistan.

"Because he is popular and he isn't George W. Bush, European leaders are going to have an interest in this being seen as a successful first encounter," said Crowley, who is now with the Center for American Progress think tank.

The improvement in tone "doesn't necessarily solve the problem that Afghanistan is a very complex situation" and persuading European allies to devote more resources to the war there at a time of economic crisis will be tough, Crowley said.

At the NATO summit in Strasbourg, France, the leaders will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the transatlantic alliance. In a move symbolizing closer Franco-American ties, France is rejoining NATO's military command after decades of self-imposed exile.

Obama will use the NATO summit to further explain a strategy he unveiled this week for Afghanistan that puts a strong focus as well on Pakistan. It sets as the main goal the defeat of al Qaeda and Taliban militants.

Obama will send 4,000 U.S. troops to help train the Afghan army and will add more civilian personnel, but he also wants NATO partners to pitch in more resources.

(Reporting by Caren Bohan; Editing by Chris Wilson)

Bolloré au Cameroun: circulez, il n'y a rien à voir!

France Inter a diffusé un reportage éloquent sur la présence de Bolloré au Cameroun. Bien entendu, les dirigeants du groupe ont essayé, jusqu’au dernier moment, de fuir les questions du journaliste…

(photo : eelke dekker - Flickr - cc)

Bolloré, c’est le roi des communicants. Sa voix résonne partout sur le territoire national et à toute heure du jour et de la nuit. À la télévision via la chaîne Direct 8, dans ses journaux gratuits (ou ses tracts publicitaires, c’est au choix) que sont Direct Soir et Direct Matin Plus et par le biais, aussi, du groupe Havas dont il est le principal actionnaire. Mais il est un sujet que l’ami intime du président n’aime pas évoquer : ses activités en Afrique. Dernier exemple en date, à l’occasion d’un reportage de Benoît Collombat diffusé ce dimanche sur France Inter dans le cadre de l’émission « Interception » (pour l'écouter, c'est ici).

« Un groupe tout puissant »...

Intitulée « Cameroun : l’empire noir de Vincent Bolloré », cette enquête montre la main mise du groupe sur ce pays. L’entreprise française a en effet décroché, pour une durée de trente ans, l’exploitation de la société ferroviaire locale, la Camrail, mais se préoccupe visiblement très peu des passagers qu’elle transporte. Bolloré contrôle également, en partie, le port autonome de Douala qu’un ex-directeur général remercié décrit comme le « poumon économique du Cameroun et de l’Afrique centrale. »

Le journaliste de France Inter a par ailleurs rencontré le directeur du Free Media Group, la société éditrice du journal Le Messager qu’il présente lui-même comme « le seul quotidien à peu près indépendant » du Cameroun. Le patron de presse est sans concession avec son « homologue » français : Bolloré, c’est « une sorte d’Etat dans l’Etat », un groupe « tout puissant » qui bénéficie d’une « couverture en haut lieu ». Il évoque notamment le rôle de Michel Roussin, vice-président du groupe Bolloré pour l’Afrique, ancien des services secrets français, ex-directeur de cabinet de Jacques Chirac à la mairie de Paris et ex-ministre de la Coopération du gouvernement Balladur.

... ou un groupe « exemplaire » ?

On comprend mieux pourquoi les responsables du groupe français n’ont pas voulu s’exprimer. Ou plutôt ont tardé à donner signe de vie. « Sur place, au Cameroun, j’ai essayé de rencontrer les différents représentants des filiales de Bolloré mais, à chaque fois, ils ont refusé, confie Benoît Collombat, En France, j’ai tenté de joindre à plusieurs reprises par mail, par téléphone, les responsables du groupe, mais j’ai très vite compris que je ne pourrais pas interviewer Vincent Bolloré, ni Michel Roussin. »

Sollicités pendant près de trois semaines, les dirigeants de Bolloré ont fini par accepter de répondre aux questions du journaliste de France Inter vendredi soir dernier, soit quelques heures seulement avant la diffusion de l’émission. Un changement de stratégie dû à la diffusion vendredi dernier d'extraits du reportage pour annoncer l'émission. C’est finalement Dominique Lafont, directeur général Afrique du groupe Bolloré qui a été envoyé au charbon pour démentir chacun des faits évoqués dans le reportage. Au passage, l'homme n'a pas hésité pas à mettre en avant « l’exemplarité » du groupe et à expliquer que « l’intérêt [de la présence de Bolloré] pour le Cameroun est évident… » Et pour les Camerounais ?

Commentary: Our schools get lousy grades By Jack Cafferty CNN

Below is an excerpt from CNN commentator Jack Cafferty's new book, "Now or Never." Cafferty appears daily in "The Situation Room" on CNN from 4 to 7 p.m. ET.

In his new book, "Now or Never," Jack Cafferty says our schools don't measure up.

(CNN) -- Call it another piece of evidence that this once great nation of ours is crumbling: Half of us believe our schools deserve a C or a D for the job they do preparing kids for higher education and making a go of it as grownups in the work force.

So said an Associated Press survey in summer 2008. The AP reported U.S. kids are scoring in the bottom half of the pack when measured against kids from other nations. President Obama's Department of Education (DOE) brain trust has their homework cut out for them if they plan on boosting the grades our schools earn while educating our kids.

Getting our kids through school has become a challenging, complex job that most folks say must begin at home with discipline, parental guidance, and closer attention to our kids' needs.

Obama said it simply in his final debate with John McCain: Unplug those video games, mom and dad, put other distractions away, and get down to work with your kids. Here's a guy who had no father around, basically; who was raised by a single white mother (helped by his white grandmother), sometimes on food stamps; and who became a star at Harvard Law School. So it can be done.

'Now or Never'

Jack's new book: "Now or Never: Getting Down to the Business of Saving Our American Dream"

Excerpt: Cafferty: 'Living a lie and a scary double life' »

We've witnessed the decline of the importance of schooling in far too many homes. Learning must be a top priority for parents. But in today's brutal economy, breadwinners are forced to work two jobs, two parents sweat to keep their jobs and homes, and the kids get left unsupervised. They go online, text their pals, stare at the tube (or YouTube), and play video games. They're not dashing out to the public library to research renewable fuels or Renaissance history.

One major bone of contention among parents and educators was Bush's 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, whose focus was squarely on standardized, multiple-choice test scores in Math and English rather than on the quality (and deeper grasp by the student) of the curriculum. Cafferty discusses book on "The Situation Room" »

Soon Congress was seeking authorization to pay bonuses up to $10,000 to reward outstanding teachers whose students excel -- one incentive to stem the flight of top teachers from our schools. Even in grades one through three, Bush's NCLB got into trouble. Reading First, the much-touted $1 billion-a-year reading program and NCLB cornerstone for 1.5 million kids in 5,200 schools, proved ineffective.

Don't Miss

• Jack's book 'Now or Never'
• Learn more about Jack Cafferty
• The Situation Room

Worse, in 2006, the DOE's inspector general found that several top program advisers benefited financially by steering states and school districts to certain tests and texts tied to Reading First materials. The result: Congress slashed Reading First's $1 billion funding in 2007 to $400 million. Our kids paid quite a price for that mess.

I did an April 2008 "Cafferty File" piece that began, "The education crisis in America's largest cities is assuming frightening proportions. Only about half of all students who attend the main school systems in the 50 largest cities actually graduate from high school." It was a "coin toss," according to the non-profit Editorial Projects in Education (EPE) Research Center. Nationally, the figure for dropouts was nearly one in three. The group's founding chairman, former Secretary of State Colin Powell, called the situation-1.2 million dropouts a year-"not just a crisis, but a catastrophe." Main school districts in Detroit, Indianapolis, Cleveland, and Baltimore all had graduation averages below 40 percent, Detroit's being 25 percent.

The real threat to the United States, I said in another piece on "dropout factories," where less than 60 percent graduate (one in 10 schools qualify), is that our kids can't cut it against kids schooled in today's emerging economies. How can they compete globally, I asked, when barely half of the kids in our largest cities even graduate?

Aron from Toronto wrote, "You're kidding, right? That ship has sailed. As one who traveled 200,000 miles on business last year, I can tell you for certain that the world places no hope, no weight upon America's youth making even a future ripple in the global waters ... Having visited the top public schools in India and China, I can assure you that the future for America's youth is much bleaker than even the greatest skeptics could imagine."

One underlying problem in public education is that the system has morphed into this giant government bureaucracy that sucks up billions and billions of dollars for everything except teaching children reading, writing, and arithmetic (and sciences). We pay school administrators hundreds of thousands of dollars to preside over these failed enterprises that produce their share of functional illiterates.

Beyond imposing some learning-related discipline at home, parents might also seize the initiative by getting more involved: serving on the school board; volunteering, time permitting, to work at the local school with kids who need extra help. When that mind set of involvement spreads through the populace, change is more likely.

I've asked many "Cafferty File" questions (all drawn from the news) about our schools that never fail to trigger intense viewer concern: Birth control pills and maternity leave for pregnant girls? A ban on all school junk food? Mandatory Breathalyzer tests at school dances? In that instance, a New Jersey superintendent said recent events had left him no choice. His program's zero-tolerance message about alcohol was a way to improve the atmosphere for education.

As Mark from Philadelphia wrote, "Having just been a high school student less than a year ago, I can tell you how rampant the alcohol and drug problem among our youth is. I can literally only name one peer of mine who has not done marijuana, and not one who has not drunk alcohol. This is just one necessary step in reforming our schools."

One "File" piece was inspired by a Chicago district that allowed the U.S. Marine Corps to run one of its high schools. Outrageous? Not to my viewers. Thomas in Florida wrote, "A high school where the students are required to be respectful of authority, that fosters an environment of personal discipline, academic and physical achievement -- sounds preposterous to me. You must be kidding. Why, before you know it, our nation might be churning out mannered, intelligent young adults again. Madison Avenue, Hollywood, and Wal-Mart would never stand for that." Greg in California wrote, "My daughter starts high school next year. Can they build one out here in Southern California by then?"