Carl-Peter Forster, president of GM Europe, talks to SPIEGEL about state aid for ailing companies, Opel's chances of survival as an independent company and his much-criticized restructuring plan.

Mr. Forster, why should the government save a company? There are two camps. One side says the government shouldn't get involved in the economy at all…a camp you yourself don't belong to, at least since the Opel crisis.

No, I never belonged to that camp. Because it's not done that way almost anywhere else in the world. All the important car-producing countries help auto manufacturers through their industrial policy. The United States, France, Italy, Russia, China and Korea all support their countries' automobile industries, because they're extremely important both technologically and in terms of employment. Germany would be at a competitive disadvantage if the government were to be completely passive in this respect.

But even if we follow this argument, it doesn't necessarily mean the government has to save individual companies such as Opel.

Correct. And the government should also ask whether the company in question is weak simply because it has been poorly managed, or because—like Opel —it's gotten into difficulties due to an unusual situation, and can be helped out of those difficulties within a limited time period.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has announced government credit guarantees for Opel or for an investor who steps in to help out the company. Frank-Walter Steinmeier, the Social Democratic Party's candidate for chancellor, even proposed that the German government take a stake in Opel. Which plan would you prefer?

That decision isn't up to us, it's up to the politicians. We were asked a question: Is there a solution which doesn't involve the government taking a stake? We're addressing that question. General Motors' European activities could be divested and consolidated under the umbrella of a new company called Opel Europe. General Motors and other investors could have shares in this company. We're currently talking with interested parties from the private equity industry and with sovereign wealth funds, for example. A government credit guarantee could reduce the level of risk, which is disproportionately high due to the financial crisis, for a certain period of time. That's what I can tell you about the plan we've been working on.

But you would prefer the government to take a direct stake?

Again, we're doing what we can, and we are creating the framework for a solution. In the end, the politicians have to make the decision.

In the United States, meanwhile, politicians have said "no," at least for the time being. US President Barack Obama turned down the restructuring plan proposed by GM, Opel's parent company, and now the firm has 60 days to develop a better plan. Is this a new last-minute reprieve for GM and thus for Opel as well?

I don't see it that way. The American president has sent several messages. The first is: The US government will participate actively in developing a solution for General Motors. And, if need be, with a surgical, precise, strategic…

…bankruptcy.

No, the talk is of insolvency according to American law, the so-called Chapter 11 proceeding. Under this, the company still produces and sells cars. But in this case the creditors will have to give up more than they have been willing to so far. The unions will have to make more concessions to the company. Health care payments for retirees may have to be cut. There may have to be further reductions in production capacity in the US. Much of it sounded quite harsh. But the US government wants a strong GM to emerge in the end, and they want to support this financially.

And yet insolvency in the US will also unsettle customers in Europe. Aren't you worried that hardly anyone will buy an Opel anymore?

First of all, insolvency proceedings in the US wouldn't affect our production and sales of cars in Europe. A restructuring program would be done in such a way that it wouldn't have a negative effect on our business in Europe. But it could worry potential customers, and we need to consider how we can prevent that. If necessary, the US government would provide a guarantee for the manufacturer. That could be a very elegant solution in Europe as well.

Are you effectively asking for a government guarantee for Opel spare parts?

No, it's only a matter of removing customers' potential doubts for a short time. The scale would be very small.

But as a whole you're asking for credit guarantees of over 3.3 billion euros($4.4 billion). Do you believe, as SPD leader Franz Müntefering does, that Opel is "system-relevant," in other words, too big to fail?

We're certainly not essential to the system in the same way as the large banks are. If one important piece is removed from the financial industry, the whole economy threatens to collapse. But we're relevant when it comes to the question of how strong the auto industry will be in Germany and in Europe in the future. On an international level, it will certainly be stronger with Opel than without it. We invest around €1.5 billion in new technologies every year, and our suppliers invest the same amount again.

The auto industry has huge amounts of surplus capacity. One of the principles of the market economy says that, when there's tough competition, the weakest manufacturer must be eliminated. What argument is there against that in this case?

There's no argument against it—competition is a good thing. But Opel is not the weakest manufacturer. The only reason we can't keep up at the moment is because we have no financial cushion of our own at GM Europe. That was all entered into the books centrally in the US. Then the Americans ran out of cash. And the aid they've received isn't allowed to leave the United States. That's our special situation.

But Opel has already been in decline for a long time. Since 1990, its market share in Europe has shrunk from 11.5 to 7.8 percent. Multiple restructuring programs have failed to stop that trend. Doesn't that show that Opel has no chance in the long run?

Forster: It's true, the brand did experience a long decline. The cars didn't have the quality and desirability they should have had. But if you want to renew all the product ranges, then it takes a certain amount of time -- after all, a car is on the market for six years. Now we've reached that point. Cars like the new Insignia win tests, they're well received on the market, the quality is right. Productivity in the factories has also risen considerably—we're now better than many competitors in this area. The decline is over. It would be tragic if this unusual situation, which has come about through no fault of Opel's, spelled the end.

Opel was already ailing before the financial crisis. The brand was caught in the middle, with Mercedes-Benz and BMW pushing into the compact category from above, and cheap Korean brands moving in from below. Won't Opel inevitably continue to shrink?

There is a lot of pressure. But that development isn't inevitable. In this industry, it always depends on having the right cars. Then it's possible to fight back against the pressure. If a car is good technologically, the design is right and the price and service as well, it's possible to sell it well even during the crisis. It's necessary to hit the mark exactly.

An argument against aid for Opel is that it would put other car manufacturers, which haven't received support, at a disadvantage.

Volkswagen CEO Martin Winterkorn has said: "The government should stay out of it."

VW just received a government guarantee worth billions for its bank. They're going to the European Investment Bank, which is also a government institution, and securing their financing that way. We don't have access to that bank, because Opel doesn't have its own rating. On top of that, VW hasn't been doing at all badly, what with the 20 percent stake held by the state of Lower Saxony. There's a whole list of advantages Volkswagen has already secured for itself. All we want is a level playing field.

If the government left Opel to its fate, tens of thousands of people would lose their jobs with the company. However, wouldn't that make jobs at VW and other manufacturers more secure?

That's a big misconception. If one or two of the players on the European market are removed, that doesn't at all reduce the pressure on those remaining. The gaps would quickly be filled by others, for example manufacturers from Korea or China. Those are managed economies with a clear strategic goal: They want to promote their automobile industries globally.

It's true, the brand did experience a long decline. The cars didn't have the quality and desirability they should have had. But if you want to renew all the product ranges, then it takes a certain amount of time—after all, a car is on the market for six years. Now we've reached that point. Cars like the new Insignia win tests, they're well received on the market, the quality is right. Productivity in the factories has also risen considerably—we're now better than many competitors in this area. The decline is over. It would be tragic if this unusual situation, which has come about through no fault of Opel's, spelled the end.

Opel was already ailing before the financial crisis

There is a lot of pressure. But that development isn't inevitable. In this industry, it always depends on having the right cars. Then it's possible to fight back against the pressure. If a car is good technologically, the design is right and the price and service as well, it's possible to sell it well even during the crisis. It's necessary to hit the mark exactly.

An argument against aid for Opel is that it would put other car manufacturers, which haven't received support, at a disadvantage.

has said: "The government should stay out of it."

VW just received a government guarantee worth billions for its bank. They're going to the European Investment Bank, which is also a government institution, and securing their financing that way. We don't have access to that bank, because Opel doesn't have its own rating. On top of that, VW hasn't been doing at all badly, what with the 20 percent stake held by the state of Lower Saxony. There's a whole list of advantages Volkswagen has already secured for itself. All we want is a level playing field.

If the government left Opel to its fate, tens of thousands of people would lose their jobs with the company. However, wouldn't that make jobs at VW and other manufacturers more secure?

That's a big misconception. If one or two of the players on the European market are removed, that doesn't at all reduce the pressure on those remaining. The gaps would quickly be filled by others, for example manufacturers from Korea or China. Those are managed economies with a clear strategic goal: They want to promote their automobile industries globally.

Mr. Forster, thank you for this interview.

Interview conducted by Armin Mahler and Dietmar Hawranek

Provided by Spiegel Online—Read the latest from Europe's largest newsmagazine