"There is a reason these oversized natural disasters happen in places like remote Pakistan and Iran, Guatemala, Sudan, the coastal areas of the Indian Ocean and, to a lesser degree, in inner-city New Orleans." Yes, these ares are corrupt and poorly governed.
"But the situation also illustrates why it is so important that the United States, working through international organizations, help the poor of the world become less poor, and thus less vulnerable to whatever Mother Nature decides to throw at them."
The United States leads the world (by a large margin) in foreign aid.
More to the point the United States has done more than any other country in the history of the world to eliminate poverty, through a little thing I like to call commerce.
Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but it seems to be implicit in articles like this that because our wealth stands in contrast to the poverty in these areas that somehow our wealth contributes to the poverty of these areas. The U.S. is the greatest wealth creating -- for other countries -- country the world has ever known.
The article seems to be written as though there is a possibility the US might not respond to the tragedy, which is nonsense. We always do, and we will again.
Yes, these places need immediate and huge infusions of aid, and the US will lead the way (but probably will get very little credit for it).
But these areas also need more law and more freedom (which are not contradictory) and more commerce in the future.