I remember Kant those days when his homeland, Kaliningrad or Königsberg is blocked, as also because the meetings of the most lethal powers, as G7, NATO, BRICS…
He says in the Appendix I titled: “On the opposition between morality and politics with respect to perpetual peace”:
“a state (USA, China or even a West or an East coalition) which once is able to stand under no external laws will not submit to the decision of other states how it should seek its rights against them; and one continent, which feels itself superior to another, even though the other does not interfere with it, will not neglect to increase its power by robbery or even conquest.” The maxims which he (the politician) makes use of -though he does not divulge them- are, roughly speaking, the following sophisms: Fac et excusa (Do and justify) Si fecisti, nega (If you did (evil), deny it), Divide e impera”, “Certainly no one is now the dupe of these political maxims, for they are already universally known”, “for they still have political honor which cannot be disputed -and this honor is the aggrandizement of their power by whatever means.(2)” And this footnote 2, says: “Even if we doubt a certain wickedness in the nature of men who live together in a state, and instead plausibly cite lack of civilization, which is not yet sufficiently advanced, i.e., regard barbarism as the cause of those antilawful manifestations of their character, this viciousness is clearly and incontestably shown in the foreign relations of states”
All this is clearer if we put the right word to reality, if we see that states are actually arms, this is; the expression of the arm among humans, the armed unit, as I am trying you to look at to see also the way out. Also Kant sees it:
In the II Appendix called “Of the harmony which the transcendental concept of public right establishes between morality and politics”:
“This artifice of a secretive politics would soon be unmasked by philosophy through publication of its maxims, if they only dared to allow the philosopher to publish his maxims” (Where or what is democracy? Maybe it is based upon the killing of Socrates).
“In this regard I propose another affirmative and transcendental principle of public law, the formula of which is: “All maxims which stand in need of publicity in order not to fail their end, agree with politics and right combined.”
This proposal “in need of publicity (universality) in order not to fail its end” is disarmament, and this is also human unity, cosmopolitanism, since disarmament (ending with evil or purpose of harming) can only be carried out jointly by inclusive decision making. Those opposing the G7, or the NATO want to make political advantages -opposition politics, since they propose disarmament but forget about human unity, which is absurd. Unilateral disarmament is surrender, serving another arm anyway.
We saw it above: “a state (USA, China or even a West or an East coalition) which once is able to stand under no external laws will not submit to the decision of other states how it should seek its rights against them; and one continent, which feels itself superior to another, even though the other does not interfere with it, will not neglect to increase its power by robbery or even conquest.”