The interconnected nature of modern terrorism demands equal responsibility from all nations because terrorist networks operate globally and threaten the fundamental principles of human security. This transcends borders. The 9/11 attacks, while occurring on American soil, involved terrorists who had trained in Afghanistan, planned in Germany, and included hijackers from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Clearly, terrorism exploits weak links in the global security chain regardless of a nation's size or wealth. When countries like Somalia or Yemen fail to control their territories due to limited resources or political instability, they inadvertently become safe havens for terrorist groups that may eventually threaten distant nations. This can be seen with Al-Shabaab's international reach and Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. As such, every nation benefits from international security and thus bears moral obligation to contribute within their means. The 2004 Madrid bombings and 2005 London attacks proved that terrorists view all democratic societies as legitimate targets. This means that no country can consider itself immune from future attacks simply because it hasn't been targeted yet. Moreover, international law principles establish that sovereignty comes with responsibility; nations that will not police their territories create security externalities that burden the entire international community. Clearly, shared responsibility is a legal imperative under UN Charter obligations to maintain international security.

However, expecting equal responsibility from all nations in counter-terrorism efforts is impractical and inequitable. The 9/11 attacks primarily targeted the United States, killing nearly 3,000 people and causing over $3 trillion in economic damage, making America the direct victim with the strongest motivation and justification for leading the response. In contrast, smaller nations like Bhutan or Pacific island states had minimal connection to the attacks and pressing domestic priorities unrelated to terrorism. While the U.S. possessed the economic prowess to pursue Al-Qaeda, expecting developing countries like Bangladesh or Honduras to contribute equally to military operations in Afghanistan would have been unreasonable. Similarly, the 2015 Paris attacks illustrated this disparity when France, as the direct victim, led the military response against ISIS in Syria, while nations like Rwanda or Nepal, despite being UN members committed to international peace, could not realistically be expected to provide equivalent resources given their limited military capabilities and lack of strategic interests in the region. The successful dismantling of terrorist networks requires targeted expertise, substantial financial resources, and sophisticated military technology that only a few developed nations possess. As such, it’s clear that effective counter-terrorism depends on leveraging the unique strengths of capable nations rather than demanding impossible equal contributions from all.