The article proposes changing the voting scheme to a qualified-majority rather than unanimity, but personally I think it would be better to try to understand why those countries are against it and work to change that, rather than overruling them, which just reinforces the idea that the EU is a tool of a small clique of countries to rule over the others.
But more practically: I kind of doubt it matters when the vote is unanimous, because at that point you're in good company, and it's going to be hard for some external entity to blame you all too much (and if they do, it's easier to find backing for your position from all those that voted like you).
You may be thinking of the Commission, who can propose legislation and are appointed for five year terms by the Council (following nominations by national governments).
Think why US governors vote differently on various foreign policy issues such the Iraq/Afganistan war or the current trade war. Absolute majority is hard to achieve even in the United States.
Not sure if this is sarcasm. American governors govern states. They have zero purview over foreign policy, which is strictly a federal matter.
China is smart, not naive. They can bring the EU to their knees with tens of billions of dollars making them completely ineffective due to their huge bureaucracy.