Securitization theory introduced by the Copenhagen School has brought about a breakthrough in the paradigm of security studies, in which the concept of desecuritization in particular has provided a new methodological perspective for exploring the diplomatic path of ″positive peace″. However, the Copenhagen School has not constructed a theoretical framework for understanding desecuritization, nor has it clearly elaborated a definition of desecuritization that is entailed in inform foreign policy and its impacts on the international community. Desecuritization in a narrow sense refers to the process of moving security issues out of the security realm and placing them into normal politics. In a broad sense, however, desecuritization should also include actions designed to prevent non-securitized issues from becoming securitized, and securitized issues from being hyper-securitized. Desecuritization is not only a reverse process of securitization, but also a process in which state actors construct suitable bilateral identities, values, and cooperation mechanisms through the creation of shared contexts with ″harmony and coexistence″ at its core. Past research on desecuritization has been characterized by a Western-centric logic. However, following the rise of non-Western countries on the international stage, the construction of a generalized theory of desecuritization is crucial not only for enhancing the broad explanatory power of this theory, but also for promoting experiences exchanging and cultural merging across different regions of the world. Given these shortcomings we introduce three important elements from discourse analysis into a generalized theory of desecuritization, including ″performative utterance″， ″identity of values″, and ″communicative ecology″. ″Performative utterance″ demonstrates that diplomatic discourse characterized by desecuritization serves as a perlocutionary act, whereby the discourse structure and the discursiveenvironment reflecting values and identities embedded in diplomatic affairs play a decisive role in making and breaking desecuritization. Constructing an ″identity of values″ depends on making rules in a specific context and presenting the effects of ″performative utterance″. A benign ″communicative ecology″ based on identity of values should take ″harmony″ as its core value and eliminate ″crises″ or ″threats″ to realize ″superior coexistence″ among state actors through paths of desecuritization. A generalized theory of desecuritization can then be constructed with ″identity of values″ as its consistent motivation，″performative utterance″ as its method, and ″communicative ecology″ characterized by ″superior coexistence″ as its ultimate goal. In addition， ″linkage diplomacy″， ″legalization″, and ″intertextuality″ are three important dimensions for evaluating the role of a generalized theory of desecuritization in the practice of diplomacy. Desecuritization is a primary feature of Chinese diplomatic discourse and an ideal way to carry out foreign policy. In the face of a complex international security situation in which traditional security and non-traditional security threats are intertwined, and given the context in which the United States and other countries are increasingly implementing a strategy of securitization vis-à-vis China, China should construct a system of major-country diplomatic discourse characterized by desecuritization that strives for ″a community of common destiny for mankind″ at its core and greater ″normative power″ recognized by the international community. Such an approach will promote creativity, charisma and credibility, and effectively solve the problems related to ″discourse security″. It also opens new avenues for finding solutions characterized by desecuritization related to Sino-US ″trade frictions″, and helps creates a new international situation for the development of ″major-country diplomacy″.