Thought on Morality and the African Condition

For 200$ and the aid of UNICEF, you can guarantee an unhealthy 3-year old African child the chance to become a healthy 6 - year old african child. You can kick-start the starving children of Africa and give them the foundation they need to live a new, healthier life, allowing them to have a real chance at a real life. This, according to Utilitarian views proposed by Peter Singer, would be the morally correct thing to do. In fact, if you aren't already doing this and can afford to, you are morally wrong in the eyes of Singer and other utilitarian philosophers. Why should we not donate the 200$? What, if anything, holds us back from achieving moral purity? It can be argued that the immediacy of the situation deters many people from realizing that to send this money to the starving children is to save a life. By only seeing the images of the strife from a safe distance, people are not encouraged to act upon their compassionate instinct for their fellow humans. People can sit back and not feel guilty because they reason that surely someone else is taking care of the problem, and why should they have to? They worked for their money, only to send it off to some country they've never been to, to a child they'll never see. On the other hand, are these people right? Are they unknowingly fighting against an unjust enemy? By not donating this money, people like columnist Kevin Myers would argue (http://www.independent.ie/
opinion/columnists/kevin-myers/writing-what-i-should-have-written-so-many-years-ago-1437779.html) that you are doing the right thing by not contributing to dangerous living conditions in places like Ethiopia, which received millions of dollars in benefits from the Live Aid concert in 1986. The conditions of which Myers makes note are those that concern the corrupt system in place in Ethiopia, a system based on Warlords who control the flow of everything from food to money in ethiopia. Myers goes so far as to say that he 'little teary-eyed starving child you saved back in 86' is now a misogynistic 20 something wielding a Kalashinikov. Myers would say that to donate now is to feed a corrupt system that benefits the warlords in charge but ultimately hurts the innocent civilians. He remarks that while the country may have been in dire straights 20-some-odd years ago, the population has been able to more than double, regardless of how badly the economic crisis may have gotten. Acknowledging these two points of view, its is up to oneself to determine which cause is truly more 'noble'; the one who contributes to the cause to give a child a chance at life, with the risk of them growing up to become a misogynistic armed insurgent, or those who choose to not donate and risk the lives of countless innocents caught in the tumult of a country in the gutter. Do or don't is the decision, there is no idle standing by in this situation. I still need five words.