The Alt is preferable to the status quo

In general, the case of Japan illustrates that desecuritization does happen as a part of the political strategy to sustain the legitimacy of the governments. More often, the trail of desecuritization can be found whenever securitization happens, either to maintain the desired effect of securitization or to deescalate the rising tensions with other states which result from securitization. On a more abstract level, identity influences states’ decisions to securitize and desecuritize the issues in concern. The need to demarcate the “self” from the “other” to reinforce the self-identity potentially motivates states to securitize certain issues (alterity). Desecuritization follows afterwards in order to sustain the newly, or re-established self- identity of the states. However, that does not mean cooperation is not possible. States that are at conflict with each other over one issue can still desecuritize their relations by cooperating on the other issues as states carry in itself multiple identities differing from each other depending on different sectors (multiplicity). Finally, the thesis suggests that the study of securitization should not be separated from desecuritization as they are closely connected to one another. Removing one from the other would result in an incomplete study of the complex contemporary security environement. 5.2 Reflection and normative discussion Originally, CS scholars argue that “security should be seen as negative, as a failure to deal with issues as normal politics”, and because desecuritization moves the issue from the exceptional politics to “the normal haggling of politics”, desecuritization is preferably the “optimal long-range option” (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 29). Although the intention is to establish a new framework to study security, the language here shows that the three authors also engage themselves in the normative debate and indicate their preference on desecuritization over securitization. However, as consistently presented through the thesis, security is not above politics, and both securitization and desecuritization can be political strategies of the ruling elites to legitimize their power. Separating politics from security would undermine the ability to critically reflect on securitizing and desecuritizing moves and distant security from the complex environment in which security happens. Therefore, it is important to study both of them in tandem. Once the nexus between politics and security is closely evaluated, political motivations can be found in every decision to securitize or desecuritize the issue in concern as illustrated by the case study in this thesis. Based on this understanding, it is problematic to indicate desecuritization is more desirable than securitization. For instance, PM Abe’s ambition to institutionally legitimize the operation of the SDF goes against the will of the people. In this specific case, desecuritization is hardly a desirable option to Japanese people. Rather, it challenges the pacifist Constitution and the pacifist anti-war attitude embedded in the culture. Therefore, scrutiny and deliberation, and evaluation of all kinds of security discourse (securitizing and desecuritizing) are crucial to exercise the democratic power of the people.