Interesting ... interesting. Who decides what peace is? Can peace simply be the absence of conflict? ... because it's conflict that is the heart of the cosmos -> mutually opposing activities manifested in infinite ways. Is there then good conflict and bad conflict? Who would be wise enough to know which is which?
Peace, I don't know ... love might be a better word.
I think calling peace the absence of conflict is oversimplifying it. If we are talking about world peace, then we need much more then just absence of conflict.
I do not consider "survival of the fittest" as a correct description of nature and in a similar way I do not agree with an image of the cosmos being in a constant state of conflict.
In and Yo are not in conflict with one another. If they were, there would be no In and Yo.
In nature we can see a lot of changes during the seasons and with the seasons. And of course one creature may be the prey of another creature.
But it is most fascinating to see how plants cooperate with other plants to survive, how they live with insects that they need for pollination or food, how predators that should be each others competitors as they hunt for the same food coordinate their efforts in the hunt, to see ants create political alliances with other kinds of ants (to give just a few examples). It all tells you that nature is about connection and cooperation.
This is what O Sensei called Aiki or love. He was not the first philosopher or sage to call it love. I am not sure if he defined this as peace though. I rather think he saw nature as a prime example of how things should be with humans. It is humans that seem always seeking for conflict and competition resulting ultimately in war. And it is humans that are for ever going against nature in everything they do. By learning/practicing Aikido humans could learn to connect more with nature and that would naturally lead to more peace.