The initial plan for the Leipzig Summit between China and the European Union featured all the heads of state or government of the 27 EU member states meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping. The goal of this 27+1 format was to project an image of unity among all EU member states, speaking to China with one voice and asking it to engage the EU as a whole, instead of taking advantage of certain countries through bilateral dealings. This is because the subject of unity and the fear that China is trying to divide the EU have become a European obsession. Almost every Chinese move is watched warily as a possible attempt to divide the EU, whether it is China’s 17+1 mechanism with Central and Eastern European countries or the Belt and Road Memoranda of Understanding that Beijing signs bilaterally with EU member states, even important ones such as Italy. But this “division by China” bogeyman and the obsession with European unity are just distracting from Europe’s real China problems and how they can be addressed.

The narrative of China trying to divide the Union and the obsession with achieving full unity have taken hold over the past years, especially after China created the then-16+1 mechanism with European countries from Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) in 2012, thus creating the perfect context for Western Europe to worry about China buying influence in the less developed Eastern half of the Union. Little did it matter that Chinese trade and investments in Central and Eastern Europe paled in comparison to those in Western Europe, where China’s leverage was far higher. This fear of disunity has only grown over the years, especially after some CEE countries really did divide the EU on certain issues, like the statements criticizing the PRC’s human rights abuses or its illegal island-building activities in the South China Sea. The fear also spread to Western Europe once Italy’s populist government joined China’s Belt and Road Initiative, though, probably because of their size, attention continued to focus on CEE countries.

The lack of unity among European member states thus came to be seen as the primary reason for Europe’s bungled approach towards China. Not the lobbying and influence of big European companies making important profits in China, pushing for a business-oriented foreign policy. Not the lack of unity inside Germany on what kind of approach towards China to adopt. Not the lack of a long-term vision and strategy in Germany and France regarding China. All of these faded into the background. The lack of unity among all 27 member states became the primary concern and those pesky Central and Eastern Europeans the primary culprits for the problems in Europe’s China policy. What a convenient excuse.

Obviously, it would be wonderful if the EU could function as a coherent entity, speaking with one voice. It’s understandable that many people want to see a united European approach towards China and the big players dislike the fact that some small governments (or big ones, in the case of Italy) are taking a different approach. But that is how things are. Sometimes, you simply can’t change reality – you need to adapt to it.

Nobody seems to demand that all political parties in Germany share the exact same vision and approach on China, but if just one out of 27 separate countries dares to take a different approach, it’s the end of the world. This isn’t a China-specific problem. There are many other foreign policy issues in which European divisions are even more intense and generate greater negative consequences for Europe. But it seems unity and division have become a China-trope regarding Europe.

Over the past few years, every article on the subject of disunity or on the now-17+1 mechanism between China and the CEE is reminding readers of Greece’s torpedoing of an EU statement against the PRC’s human rights abuses or how Greece and Hungary opposed stronger criticism of the PRC’s illegal island-building activities in the South China Sea. But why should such things matter? Would Beijing have abandoned its island-building activities in the South China Sea if the entire EU criticized them in stronger terms? Would it show more respect for human rights if the EU as a whole, instead of just 26 separate governments, criticized it? Those statements were never meant to achieve anything tangible, just to create the impression that something is being done and Europe is taking a stand.