There are many layers of politics surrounding the hostage drama in the Philippines, not least the sharp exposure of President Joseph Estrada's shortcomings in handling it. His reputation has come tumbling down since he was elected on a populist ticket two years ago. Croneyism, corruption and erratic decision-making rapidly took the sheen off his appeal. So has his effective capitulation to the Philippine armed forces in handling the Muslim rebellion in the south of the country which has given rise to the hostage affair. In the latest twist to the story, it appears that Mr Estrada has decided to negotiate with the Abu Sayyaf group holding the 21 European hostages. The group has presented him with a series of written demands, including more autonomy for the Mindanao region, a return to previous agreements which have been abrogated by the armed forces, and enhanced fishing rights. Given that an estimated two-thirds of the 130,000 strong Philippine army are engaged in fighting Muslim guerrillas, it can be seen that there is much at stake for all concerned. Mr Estrada has come under intense pressure to resolve the hostage crisis peacefully - especially from the European Union states from which most of the hostages come. But that is also the preference of many Philippine politicians and interest groups, who see it as an opportunity to embarrass the president.
Historically, the Mindanao region has been a cockpit of conflict for four centuries. It was never captured by the Spaniards, who colonised the Philippines, but was brutally occupied by the United States, who took over from them in 1898. After the second World War, the Muslim population was marginalised by mass migration from elsewhere in the Philippines. A war of liberation was launched after settlers and mining companies took over traditionally owned land and exploited the territory's vast natural and agricultural wealth - it produces about half of the Philippine output of food. At least 60,000 people were killed and hundreds of thousands displaced in wars between powerful guerrilla armies and the armed forces before a peace treaty was signed in 1976.
Fighting continued less intensively in the following 20 years, until Presidents Aquino and Ramos sued relatively successfully for peace. Their efforts led to an encouraging reconciliation, as army units became involved in local development, despite a split in the Muslim guerrillas. President Estrada's aggressive policy has thrown these positive developments aside, giving the army an opportunity to reopen its offensives. As a result, the cost of the war has escalated alarmingly, while the Mindanao region's important economic role is jeopardised. The wider south-east Asian region is exposed to another dangerous religious war.
This hostage crisis comes at a difficult time for the Philippines. There are many who feel President Estrada is using the war to divert attention from other pressing problems for which he should be answerable. None of this makes the outlook for the hostages any easier. While these deeper political forces play themselves out, it looks as if they could be in for a long period in captivity.