The Emperor of the Great Qing reaffirms the right of any sovereign ruler to suppress armed rebellion within the borders of his state. How do the rebels in Belgium or Texas differ from any other bandit? Is rebellion conferred with legitimacy simply if the rebels possess a flag? To deny the right of another ruler to defend his state from banditry is to undermine the very basis of the sovereign state. If a ruler is no longer entitled to rule without the approval of the international community, then what is he but a puppet of international opinion?
Moreover, we believe that the detractors of the King of the Dutch and the Prime Minister of the Mexicans are being selective. Would they be as tolerant of rebellion within their own borders? If rebels massed against them, would they accept their cause as just? Would they submit their state to the ravages of anarchy? We scarcely believe so. The Emperor of the Great Qing believes that there must be an indivisible principle on this matter: either all forms of rebellion and banditry are justified and warranted, or none are.
~ His Imperial Majesty, the Emperor of the Great Qing, Son of Heaven, Lord of Ten Thousand Years