台海兩岸，自一九四九年對峙至今，五十餘年，在二十世紀末的歐洲諸國，逐漸放棄了它們所倡導的主權國家觀，而邁向跨國界的統合。想想歐洲的成功，身為同文同種的中華民族，是不是應該開始思考，除了戰爭之外，有沒有其他的選項，有沒有和平的可能？要和平，勢必要經過談判階段，要如何創造雙贏局面！ 中共談判風格的形成，馬列思想是其理論，統一戰線是其運用，中國文化是其根本。在談判行為上，向來先行提出原則，要求對方接受，若要談判成功，只有自己讓步。在談判策略運用上，可謂多變靈活，無論主動或被動的接受談判，並不是為了要解決爭端，求取勝利才是主要目的。 在兩岸事務性協商中以「九二香港會談」最為重要，這是兩岸唯一一次就「一個中國」問題來進行討論。 海協會代表建議雙方應就「一個中國」有所「表述」，在協商過程中，由於雙方對「一個中國」表述問題均無交集，致使談判陷入僵局。 陸委會鑒於兩岸對「一個中國」問題難有共識，決定授權海基會代表向海協會建議在彼此可以接受的範圍內；『雙方均堅持一個中國的原則，各自以口頭方式說明立場』解決問題，此即所謂的「一中各表」。 海協會經研究後尊重並接受海基會以口頭方式表述『一個中國』原則的建議，至於口頭表述的內容將另行協商。 「在兩岸互動過程中，這是一件何等重大的事情—大陸接受台灣的建議，成為兩岸數十年來第一個政治妥協！」 如今，為了是否有『九二共識』兩岸關係正處在十字路口，如何化解僵局，將成為二十一世紀初國際關注焦點。兩岸關係是前進抑或倒退，關鍵就看雙方執政當局能否展現真誠，從穩定兩岸關係的角度來看，對話、協商仍然是最佳方案。 惟有拋棄政黨之私及意識型態，以談判代替對抗，攜手合作，兩岸關係才有一個光明燦爛的未來。 筆者以為「『一個中國』的原則，才是維持台海平靜的重要基礎。」只有認同『一個中國』的原則才能維持『和平競爭』。 The political standoff between China and Taiwan has been going on for over 50 years since 1949. Sarcastically, European countries have broken away from the traditional concept of sovereignty state and successfully established an inter-state union at the end of the 20th century. People on both sides of the Taiwan Strait need to consider alternative options for peace rather than going to war. A win-win situation always requires continuous dialogues and negotiations. The way Beijing authorities negotiate is based on Marx -Lenin theory, rooted on the Chinese culture, and utilize their tactics of united front. When negotiating, the Beijing authorities always make clear their button lines first, then force their opponents to accept. To avoid the negotiations from breaking down, their opponents have no choice but to make a concession. To the Chinese, achieving victory seems more important than solving problems. Of all the cross-strait functional dialogues and negotiations, ’92 Hong-Kong talks is the most significant event, which was the only occasion where the issue of “one China” was discussed. At that meeting, the Association for Relations Across the Taiwan Strait (ARATS) suggested that both sides interpret their own position on “one China”. However, the talks went into a deadlock as no consensus was reached on their respective interpretation. Since it was unlikely to reach a consensus, the Taipei-based Mainland Affair Council authorized the Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF) to propose to the ARATS that “both sides adhere to its own position of one China and express it orally”. This is the so-called “one China, respective interpretations”. The ARATS accepted the SEF’s proposal and agreed that how “one China” would be interpreted by both sides could be negotiated at a later time. This is a significant event throughout the cross-strait interactions as China accepted Taiwan’s political offer for the first time. Toady, the existence of “’92 consensus” is questioned by the Democratic Progressive Party government, which has already hurt the cross-strait relations. How to mend the relations can be a major event in the 21st century. The true willingness by both governments to break the deadlock is the key to move cross-strait relations forward. Dialogues and negotiations are still the best way to improve relations. Putting aside ideology and unilateral interests and replacing confrontation with dialogues are the only way to bring a positive hope to the cross-strait relations. The author believes that: “one China” formula is the key to maintaining stability. Only following the “one China” policy can lead to peaceful competition.