By Wolfgang Bittner*
GÖTTINGEN, Germany | 6 October 2026 (IDN) — Recently, there have been calls for Germany to become neutral,[1] as Stalin had already proposed in 1952. At that time, he offered the other three principal victorious powers of the Second World War negotiations on a peace treaty with Germany. The condition was the neutrality of a future united Germany, except for the eastern territories under Polish administration.
At the same time, the Adenauer government had already decided, in secret negotiations, to rearm and join NATO. The Western Allies rejected the Soviet proposal. Konrad Adenauer also dismissed it as an “unserious diversionary tactic” meant to prevent the Federal Republic of Germany from integrating into the West. In this way, Germany lost an opportunity to pursue a self-determined policy.
Instead, the two German states, stripped of sovereignty by the victorious powers after Germany’s unconditional surrender, remained under foreign control, though this was gradually relaxed. According to the prevailing view, the Federal Republic of Germany, as a “subject of international law identical to the German Reich”,[2] regained “full sovereignty” through the Two Plus Four Treaty of 12 September 1990. The treaty states that united Germany has “full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs”.[3] In theory, therefore, German neutrality would be possible today.
Sovereignty—and its limits
That is the official position. But Germany’s sovereignty has subsequently been affected by further treaties and commitments, including agreements on the stationing of foreign troops, NATO membership, Permanent Structured Cooperation (PESCO),[4] other military and economic agreements, and overarching EU legislation. These arrangements affect Germany’s room for manoeuvre in foreign policy.[5]
The present stationing of foreign forces in Germany rests on treaty arrangements requiring German consent, rather than on the occupation regime that followed the Second World War. Nevertheless, the extent to which such arrangements limit Germany’s ability to pursue an independent foreign and security policy remains a legitimate political question.
Although agreements concerning the stationing of troops or membership of NATO can be terminated, and Germany could also leave the EU, it is highly questionable whether a German government would dare to take such steps or would be able to assert itself against the United States and the United Kingdom. It is also well known that US governments have withdrawn from international treaties when they no longer considered them to be in the country’s interests.
CDU politician Wolfgang Schäuble, who played a key role in shaping German politics for decades,[6] said on 18 November 2011, more than twenty years after reunification and the Two Plus Four Treaty, at the European Banking Congress in Frankfurt am Main:
“Critics who believe that there must be congruence between all policy areas are in fact assuming the regulatory monopoly of the nation state. That was the old legal order, which still underpins international law with the concept of sovereignty, which has long since been reduced to absurdity in Europe, most recently in the two world wars of the first half of the last century. And we in Germany have not been fully sovereign at any point since 8 May, 1945.” [7]
That was the opinion of an experienced politician.
In international law, sovereignty is defined, under older legal interpretations, as a state’s authority over its domestic and foreign policy actions.[8] More recent interpretations, however, say a state can waive certain rights through treaties with other states and thus voluntarily restrict the exercise of its sovereignty.
That could apply to Germany. But it raises the question of how far all the restrictions under which Germany operates can genuinely be regarded as voluntary.
Four questions Germany should ask
- Can a country whose population is constantly lied to, deceived and humiliated, which has no conventional peace treaty and whose former enemy status is still referred to in Articles 53 and 107 of the United Nations Charter, be fully sovereign?
The so-called enemy-state clauses date from the end of the Second World War and envisaged coercive measures against former enemy states under certain circumstances.
However, an important historical development should be mentioned. In 1995, the UN General Assembly formally recognised that the enemy-state clauses had become obsolete and expressed its intention to initiate the procedure to delete them from the Charter. Nevertheless, they have remained in the text of the Charter.
That does not answer why provisions relating to Germany’s former enemy status remain formally present in the UN Charter more than eight decades after the end of the war.
- Can a country with a large network of US military installations and around 37,000 American military personnel permanently stationed on its territory, as well as US nuclear weapons, be fully sovereign?
Ramstein Air Base has become one of the most important US military installations outside the United States. International military conferences have been held there, and the base has also played a role in US military operations, including drone warfare.
Today, the foreign military presence is based on Germany’s formal consent and international agreements. But the political question remains: how independently can a country act when another power’s extensive military infrastructure is permanently located on its territory?
- Can a country in which legal provisions originating in the post-war occupation period continue to have effect be fully sovereign?
There is a debate about what has been described as “petrified occupation law”.[10] This refers to occupation law that, on the conclusion of the Transition Treaty, was not subject to disposition by German state authority, and whose individual provisions continued to have legal effect.[11]
The Scientific Services of the German Bundestag have themselves examined this question in connection with the sovereignty of the Federal Republic.[3] Their analysis maintains that Germany has enjoyed full sovereignty since 1990, while also discussing the continuing legal effects of certain provisions originating in the occupation period.
The question is therefore not simply historical. It concerns the extent to which structures created under the post-war order continue to influence Germany today.
- Can a country that allows itself to be cut off from inexpensive Russian energy supplies, repeatedly accepts policies dictated by stronger partners, and is subject to EU legislation that may run counter to its own interests be considered fully sovereign?
Membership of the European Union involves the voluntary transfer or joint exercise of powers in many fields. Germany participates in making those decisions. But that does not make it unreasonable to ask whether, in practice, the country retains sufficient freedom to pursue policies that differ fundamentally from those of its principal partners.
A question that deserves public debate
The question of Germany’s sovereignty is difficult. It has existential implications for the population, yet official circles largely avoid discussing it. It is time to bring the issue into public debate, as several peace organisations are now attempting to do.
Perhaps one could say that Germany is not completely sovereign—if such a thing as incomplete sovereignty exists—and that, with a self-confident government capable of acting independently, it could achieve at least a greater degree of sovereignty in the sense of the more recent interpretation of international law.
The prevailing legal position is clear: under the Two Plus Four Treaty, Germany regained full sovereignty in 1990.[3]
But legal sovereignty and the ability to act independently are not necessarily the same thing.
Given the circumstances described above, it seems reasonable to conclude that the German government cannot act independently to the extent required to protect what it considers the interests of its own population. In that sense, Germany does not exercise sovereignty in the way that the term might suggest.
Could Germany become neutral?
The present circumstances also stand in the way of German neutrality, which, in my view, could help solve many of today’s problems.
Neutrality would require fundamental political decisions and intensive diplomatic efforts at the highest level. Germany’s relations with NATO, the United States, its European partners and Russia would all have to be addressed. The presence of foreign forces and Germany’s existing military commitments would likewise have to be reconsidered.
Such a change is unlikely at present.
But despite seemingly insurmountable obstacles, the goals of greater German sovereignty and neutrality should not be abandoned. Commendable initiatives are working toward these objectives, and they deserve support.[12]
The writer and journalist Dr. jur. Wolfgang Bittner lives in Göttingen. He has published more than 80 books. His book Geopolitik im Überblick. Deutschland-USA-EU-Russland (Geopolitics at a Glance: Germany-USA-EU-Russia) was recently published. He is the first signatory of the appeal for German neutrality. (IDN-InDepthNews)
Notes and sources
2 See www.bundestag.de/webarchiv/presse/hib/2015_06/380964-380964
3 In detail, but weak in its argumentation, the Scientific Services of the German Bundestag, “Transition Agreement and ‘Enemy State Clauses’ in Light of the Sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Germany under International Law”: www.bundestag.de/resource/blob/414956/52aff2259e2e2ca57d71335748016458/wd-2-108-06-pdf-data.pdf
4 See Spiegel Online, 13 November 2017, www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/bruessel-23-eu-staaten-gruenden-pesco-zusammenarbeit-bei-verteidigung-a-1177685.html
5 Sebastian Fries comments, “Between security and sovereignty: American troop deployment and the Federal Republic of Germany’s scope for action in foreign policy,” https://edoc.bbaw.de/opus4-bbaw/frontdoor/deliver/index/docId/359/file/26PiNaLFNd6L_327.pdf
6 Schäuble (1942-2023) was Federal Minister for Special Tasks and Head of the Federal Chancellery from 1984 to 1989, Federal Minister of the Interior from 1989 to 1991 and again from 2005 to 2009. From 2017 to 2021, he was President of the German Bundestag.
7 www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdg8_9diL2E (opened on 15 October, 2025)
8 Siehe Burkhard Schöbener (Hrsg.), “Völkerrecht. Lexikon zentraler Begriffe und Themen”, C.F. Müller, Heidelberg 2014, S. 393.
- Siehe Wolfgang Bittner, “Niemand soll hungern, ohne zu frieren”, Verlag zeitgeist, Höhr-Grenzhausen 2024, S. 63 ff.
10 See “Überleitungsvertrag und ‚ Feindstaatenklauseln’ im Lichte der völkerrechtlichen Souveränität der Bundesrepublik Deutschland”, S. 7.
11 In detail: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Überleitungsvertrag (opened on 15 October, 2025).