Whether secretly monitoring the behavior of leaders of other countries can help maintain global stability is a complex issue involving international politics, ethics, law, and practical utility. The following analysis is carried out from multiple dimensions： --- ###**1. Arguments to support monitoring** 1. **Prevent potential threats** Proponents believe that intelligence surveillance can help identify hostile actions (such as military expansion, terrorist support, or nuclear proliferation plans) in advance, so as to avoid escalation of conflicts through diplomatic or defensive means. For example, intelligence sharing during the cold war was considered to help prevent nuclear misjudgment. 2. **Basis for strategic decision-making** Mastering the intentions and policy trends of other countries' leaders can enable their countries to formulate more accurate diplomatic strategies and reduce misjudgments caused by information asymmetry. For example, by monitoring and understanding the negotiation cards, it is possible to lead to a more stable agreement. 3. **Short-term stabilization effect** In times of crisis (such as regime change or regional conflicts), monitoring may provide critical information to respond quickly and prevent the situation from spiraling out of control. --- ###**2. Arguments against surveillance** 1. **Undermine international trust** Once secret surveillance is exposed, it may trigger a diplomatic crisis and lead to a collapse of trust between countries. For example, after the 2013 Edward Snowden incident exposed the US surveillance of the leaders of its allies, many countries demanded a reassessment of intelligence cooperation with the United States, and long-term alliance relations were damaged. 2. **Intensifying the arms race and confrontation** Surveillance behavior may lead to retaliatory measures, such as anti-surveillance, cyberattacks, or diplomatic confrontations, forming a “monitoring-countermeasures” cycle and increasing the risk of conflict. For example, the improvement of cyberwarfare capabilities between countries may threaten the security of global infrastructure. 3. **Violation of international law and principles of sovereignty** The United Nations Charter emphasizes the principles of sovereign equality of States and non-interference in internal affairs.Secret surveillance is regarded as a violation of sovereignty, weakening the authority of international law and harming the rules-based global order. 4. **Ethics and legality disputes** Even for security purposes, surveillance behavior may violate personal privacy rights and challenge ethical bottom lines. Public doubts about “double standards” (such as monitoring allies but condemning other countries) can also weaken international voice. --- ###**3. Actual case analysis** -**"Prism Gate" incident**: The US surveillance of allied leaders triggered strong protests from the European Union, which led to tensions in transatlantic relations and even delayed part of the process of international cooperation. -**Cold War intelligence war**: The United States and the Soviet Union avoided direct conflict by monitoring each other, but they were also on the verge of war many times due to misjudgments (such as the Cuban missile crisis), highlighting the double-edged sword effect of intelligence. --- ###**4. Alternative paths: Cooperation and transparency** 1. **Multilateral intelligence sharing mechanism** Establish a legal intelligence cooperation framework through international organizations (such as the United Nations and Interpol) to reduce the need for unilateral surveillance. 2. **Strengthening diplomatic communication channels** Increase direct dialogue between leaders and crisis management mechanisms, and reduce dependence on secret intelligence. 3. **Technical risk control** Standardize the code of conduct for cyberspace and avoid the abuse of surveillance technology leading to global instability. --- ###**Conclusion: The trade-off between short-term benefits and long-term costs** Secret surveillance may provide security benefits in the short term, but its long-term costs (loss of trust, legal and ethical disputes, and increased risk of conflict) often exceed the benefits. True global stability needs to be based on respect for sovereignty, transparency in rules, and international cooperation, rather than relying on unilateral monitoring methods. In extreme cases (such as counter-terrorism or nuclear proliferation threats), intelligence activities must strictly follow the framework of international law and achieve legitimacy through multilateral coordination.