Actually all wise or discreet people know it. Peace is justice, equality, instead of injustice or the hierarchy or inequality imposed by the state by democratic or other means. Take Kant for instance, frequently misread by assuming he equalizes democracy and peace. In the Appendix I to the Perpetual Peace, titled: ON THE DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN MORALS AND POLITICS WITH REFERENCE TO PERPETUAL PEACE, he says: “If a part of the world (West or East, or USA, China, Russia..) feels its superiority to another, whether this be in its way or not, will not fail to take advantage of an opportunity offered of strengthening its power by the spoliation or even conquest of this territory.”

This would be full clear for all, if not because the ideology or the figurations each state make confess to its subjects, starting by the nationality, hiding the fact that states are all the same arms, incorporated arms or armed units, hazardously build since Prehistoric times from smaller and dispersed units up to the global present.

Kant tells us how to make peace in Appendix II, titled: CONCERNING THE HARMONY OF POLITICS WITH MORALS ACCORDING TO THE TRANSCENDENTAL IDEA OF PUBLIC RIGHT, where he says: “Philosophy could easily frustrate the artifices of a politics like this, which shuns the light of criticism, by publishing its maxims (the aim of your action), if only statesmen would have the courage to grant philosophers the right to ventilate their opinions. With this end in view, I propose another principle of public right, which is at once transcendental and affirmative. Its formula would be as follows:—“All maxims which require publicity, in order that they may not fail to attain their end, are in agreement both with right and politics.”

Politicians can talk at the UN, but, as arms representatives, they only issue there figurations backing their arm grow and what is detrimental to the other arms.

Kant means by Philosophy as to take a human point of view, opposed to the politician’s or arm´s servant. And the philosopher proposal is disarmament, this is human unity, inclusive decision-making, this is actually Kant´s proposal of PUBLICITY of the aims (what is the problem?), because an unilateral disarmament is not real disarmament but surrender, service to another arm, while real disarmament is cooperation for common good = publicity of the aims (and no to harm others as now).

And, on the contrary, to propose peace, without proposing human unity at the same time, as those peace mediators do, is basically ignorance or/and, actually, politics.

But now, the philosopher has talked (to you), and he needs that PUBLICITY, nobody grants to him because everybody has to live first and life/money is given by the state only. However, Justice, as the cosmopolitans saw, is to expose, condemn and dissuade evil, harm and harming purposes (instead of hiding the arm behind ideologies) and praise and reward goodness, benefit to our fellow humans. Therefore we will make peace by means of Justice, as you can see here https://human-unity.org/signup/