02/01/2018 Beyond 100 Days

You're watching Beyond 100 Days.

Six days of protests,

several dead and now Iran's supreme

leader blames foreign countries

for the unrest at home.

Demonstrators want better

economic conditions and less

engagement abroad -

it's a sentiment we've

heard around the world.

The demonstrators are overwhelmingly

young and frustrated at financial

hardship and social repression.

They're up against a government

determined to stop them.

Donald Trump is back

in the White House -

he has a packed agenda at home

and multiple crises abroad.

Does he have a game plan for 2018?

Also on the programme...

Time's Up, the new campaign

sponsored by the women of Hollywood,

which vows to stamp out harassment

and gender inequality.

And if you are feeling bookish

in these dark months of the year -

how about trying to read a whole

bookshop while running it?

Get in touch with us

using the hashtag

#Beyond100Days.

Hello and welcome -

I'm Katty Kay in Washington

and Christian Fraser is in London.

Add Iran to the list

of countries grappling

with a populist wave.

The violent demonstrations

of the past six days

surprised everyone,

but their roots look familiar.

Protestors are fed up

with the establishment in Tehran

spending money on foreign ventures

that cause economic

hardship at home.

The Supreme Leader,

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has

blamed Iran's enemies,

the United States and Saudi Arabia.

President Trump certainly

sees opportunity.

But there is no leader of this

movement, no obvious manifesto,

so where does it lead

and what it can actually accomplish?

Our Middle East editor

Jeremy Bowen reports.

In Tehran, squads of motorbike

police are cruising the streets

to break up groups of demonstrators.

The protests have changed

since they started last Thursday.

To begin with, they

were about the economy.

Most of the protesters

are young men.

More than 50%

of Iranians are under 30.

And perhaps 40% of

them are unemployed.

That pent up political frustration

is spilling out and much of it has

been directed at this man,

the supreme leader

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

He is the powerful figurehead

of the Islamic Republic,

and attacks on his posters

will be seen as attacks

on the Islamic system.

He's blaming Iran's foreign enemies.

TRANSLATION:

Following recent

events, the enemies have united

and are using all their means -

money, weapons, policies

and security services -

to create problems for the Islamic

Republic.

It's not just Ayatollah Khamenei,

the supreme leader, who's

blaming foreigners.

Mohammad Hartemi,

a reformist, says Iranians

have the right to protest,

but he blamed Iran's enemies,

led by the United States,

for inciting people

to destroy public buildings

and to insult religious values.

President Obama, in 2009,

was careful not to give the last big

protest his backing.

But President Trump has

tweeted his support.

The people of Iran,

he declared, are finally acting

against the brutal and corrupt

Iranian regime.

But whatever President Trump wants,

this isn't a new revolution.

They are still the most serious

popular protests since the mass

demonstrations that

followed the disputed 2009

presidential election.

Those protests were beaten

by the power of the state,

even though they were led by top

politicians and directed

at a badly divided leadership.

The new protests are not as well

organised and may run out of steam.

But the fact they're happening

at all is very significant.

They show how discontented Iranians

are with state repression

and increasing poverty.

Jeremy Bowen, BBC News.

For more analysis, we can speak

to Professor Mohammad Marandi

from the University of Tehran.

it's not surprising that the Iranian

people are bit fed up. They have

unemployment among young people at

30%, the price of staple food and

goods has risen by 40% in recent

weeks, and yet sanctions have been

lifted and the country ought to be

feeling Richard?

First of all,

sanctions have not been lifted. The

United States has failed to abide by

its side of the bargain. The

Iranians made many concessions with

regard to the nuclear programme, and

the Americans basically refused to

abide by their side of the bargain.

As we speak, if I was to send you a

single euro or dollar or pound to

your bank account in England, that

would be impossible, and vice versa.

So no, most Iranians recognise that

the United States has betrayed the

Iranians. On the other hand, you

have to make a sharp distinction

between the protesters we have been

seeing over the last few months who

have been protesting after the

collapse of a number of banking

institutions and a lot of people

lost their money. They have been

protesting in Tehran in front of

Parliament and other places. That is

not new. What happened in Mashhad

was that a small segment of the

protesters began to riot. Then in

the following days, we saw more

riots spread out in different

cities, but smaller in number.

Gradually, the protesters separated

themselves and they no longer

participated because they didn't

want to be seen with these more

extreme groups. We have seen police

cars burnt, banks destroyed. They

took a fire truck and pushed it down

a hill and if a car, killing a

family. They attacked a police

station. In one attack, six people

were killed. Unfortunately, social

media apps are being used and the

people who are instigating the

violence and teaching people how to

produce Molotov cocktails are in

Europe and North America. In 2009,

when we had the same phenomenon in

London, these were called rioters

and the Prime Minister of England

was threatening to shut down social

media. Ultimately, the companies

behind these applications cooperated

with the British government to

arrest these people. So when it

comes to Iran, these are protesters.

When it is in England, they are

rioters.

A lot of criticism has

focused on Iran's foreign policy,

which is pretty expansive in Syria

and Iraq. Shouldn't the government

be looking after people at home

rather than spending money on

foreign ventures?

Well, if it wasn't

for Iran, Syria would have fallen

and we would have had Al-Qaeda and

ice 's flags flying over Damascus.

The same is true with Iraq. But if

you look at the polls carried out by

the University of Maryland, an

American university, they have

consistently shown that the

overwhelming majority of Iranians

support Iran's foreign policy in the

region, because Iranians know that

if Syria and Iraq had fallen, it is

basically because the United States

and its allies like Saudi Arabia was

supporting the extremists. If these

countries had fallen, the battle

would have started inside Iran

itself. We had a terrorist attack in

Tehran. If these countries had

fallen, the situation in Iran would

be dramatically worse. So it is not

only for the sake of security in the

region that Iran helped fight in

these countries, but also for Iran's

national security.

Professor, thank

you. Professor Mohammad Marandi, who

does have links to the Iranian

government and so can speak about

what happens in Tehran. It is worth

pointing out how differently the

Obama and Trump situations have

handled the Iran situation.

In June 2009, a series of protests

erupted in Tehran over

the election results.

President Obama stayed

pretty quiet and was

criticised for not strongly

supporting the demonstrators.

A week on, facing criticism

that his response was weak,

Obama issued a White House Statement

which included the retort:

"The Iranian government must

understand that the world

is watching."

Fast forward to 2017 and protests

break out once again -

not dissimilar to those

of eight years ago.

And within one day, Donald Trump

posts this on Twitter:

"Many reports of peaceful

protests by Iranian citizens

fed up with regime's

corruption & its squandering

of the nation's wealth

to fund terrorism abroad.

Iranian govt should respect

their people's rights, including

right to express themselves.

The world is watching!

Though you might recognise

the "world is watching"

line from Obama, that's

where the similarity ends.

Let's bring in Robin Wright, a joint

fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center

and US Institute of Peace who has

reported extensively on Iran.

Firstly, your thoughts on what the

professor was saying?

The protests

in Iran are different from 2009.

This is grassroots. It doesn't have

an apparent leadership. It was

sparked by economic issues, although

it has grown quickly into political

issues challenging the regime. The

question is how the regime will

respond. Unlike 2009, it has said

that protests are legitimate as long

as they don't turn into violence.

That is where the dividing line is.

In 2009, you had a hardline

president and they clamped down on

the protesters quickly and engaged

in Stalinist type trials and put

many of them in jail for long prison

sentences. We will have to see how

this plays out, but the regime does

face serious problems that will play

out economically for a variety of

reasons. This is a hard time.

We

didn't hear much sympathy for the

protesters from the professor

speaking in Iran. Where does this

leave the White House? President

Trump has adopted a more aggressive

tone towards the Iranian government

in his tweets. What is he going to

do?

He has several decisions to make

in the coming weeks about the

Iranian nuclear deal, whether to

wait sanctions against and how to

proceed. The government has talked

in some quarters about regime change

or demanding that the regime change

its behaviour, which amounts to

regime change. The question is how

confrontational the Trump

administration will be. The Obama

administration invested in a nuclear

deal, thinking that might open the

way for discussions on other flash

points or other issues of common

interest. We are headed towards, I

think, a much deeper stand-off with

Iran. The question is, how far will

the Trump administration go? Has

bigger problems to face in North

Korea. Can it take on two at the

same time?

The US ambassador to the

UN has spoken. She says the claims

that America is behind this are

plainly ridiculous. But it is a

timeline for the Trump

administration, because if they look

like they are trying to foment

trouble within Iran, it gives the

regime an excuse.

Absolutely, and

remember in 1953, the CIA and

British intelligence were involved

in orchestrating a coup against a

democratically elected government

that had forced the Shah to leave

Iran and abandon the throne. After

six days, the Shah was brought back.

Iranians believe their revolution in

1979 was in large part because when

they tried evolutionary change

themselves, they were blocked from

doing it by the outside world. And

that resonates today. How far the US

goes and how far the European allies

go will be very instrumental in

determining the state of relations

between the West and Iran, as well

as the course of this very

interesting and rest.

And the

reaction from the government

tomorrow is probably going to be

predictable. They will bring out

huge numbers of people in rallies to

try and swamp out the protest.

Yes,

and they have done this before. But

the reality is, time and again, in

1999 with the student protests and

in 2009 with the millions who turned

out to challenge the election and

today, in more than 60 cities in

Iran, you see this very strong

resistance. This is not over, even

if the protests. In the near future.

There are deep divisions inside the

society.

Thank you for coming in.

Christian and I were speaking to an

Iran watcher here in Washington this

morning who was saying there are

similarities to these populist

waves. Each one has its own

independent characteristics, but if

you look at the fact that they

started in cities outside of Iran

and have been directed against the

government in Tehran, that they are

around economic concerns, it is

going too far to say that this is

the kind of Iran first moment, but

there are elements of that. What is

the government doing, being engaged

in Iraq, Syria and Yemen, rather

than looking after the price of food

at home and unemployment levels?

They want the focus to be on those

issues.

It is interesting that the

ayatollah has spoken today. The fact

that he felt it necessary to talk

tells you how serious it is, and the

fact that they are bringing huge

numbers of people out on the streets

again reflects how serious they are.

The difference between this protest

and the one in 2009 is where it

started. It is not so much focus in

Tehran, we are seeing it in the

provinces, and if it spreads to the

middle classes, that is when it will

be interesting.

One Iranian pointed

out another difference. The spread

of smartphones in Iran has increased

dramatically since 2009. Lots of

people have smartphones now and

there are managing to organise

demonstrations around the country by

using apt that the government hasn't

yet totally shut down. Let's move on

to American politics.

President Trump began

the new year with a string

of foreign policy tweets -

but he has an equally

busy agenda at home.

He's got to work to keep

government funded and open,

decide what to do about young

undocumented immigrants and try

for another big legislative win.

He left Washington before

the holidays on a high

after passing tax reform.

Now he says he wants to work

with Democrats to improve

the country's infrastructure.

It all sounds like politics as

usual, but one thing we've learned

with this President is never

to expect the normal.

So how will Trump 2018

differ from Trump 2017?

Joining me now is political

analyst and former advisor

to George W Bush, Ron Christie.

Happy new year to you.

Happy new

year.

We are glad to have you back

from the Sunni west coast and with

us on the freezing east coast. We

know that President Trump has a full

agenda. Let's have a quick look at

some of the things he has to get

done. If this was in my inbox on the

2nd of January, I think it would

give me heart failure. He has to

keep the government open. That ought

to be fine. He has to come with a

budget and decide what to do about

dreamers, the young undocumented

workers. He has to carry on trying

to repeal Obamacare. We don't need

to go through the whole list, but

there are lots of things. Will this

be a year in which President Trump

can work with Democrats, which he

needs to do on lots of those things,

and get something big done for

America?

It could be. This is

something that Democrats have as

much of an interest in as

Republicans. Our roads, bridges and

infrastructure in the United States

is crumbling. It is antiquated and

out of date. This is one area where

bipartisan consensus could help

Donald Trump work with his friends,

chat and Nancy. They could forge

bipartisan consensus. But here is

where it gets more difficult, the

budget you mentioned. The president

has said, we will build a war with

Mexico in order to get a bucket and

if we don't get the wall, we will

not have the relief of those young

undocumented migrants, otherwise

known as the dreamers. This is where

the Trump and Democrats will have

their showdown. The Trump get his

wall? Do the Democrats get the

dreamers, or do both compromise?

Sitting here in London, this is

where President Trump has a strong

hand. Looking at the world

superpower of America with a huge

economy and a creaking

infrastructure and health care

system that doesn't work, he is

pretty strong on those things.

Those

are two areas he is strong on. As a

former real estate builder and

developer, this is something he

comes to with experience where he

can say to Democrats, if we put by

amount of billion dollars into

infrastructure spending, these are

the sorts of returns we can get.

This is a strong point for the

president and one that if he were

watching your programme on the first

day back in the new year, I would

say to him, Mr President, this is a

golden opportunity. Go to the

Democrats, seek, mice and forge

forward -- seek a compromise.

But he

poisoned the well last year. Our

Nancy and Chuck going to want to

play ball?

That was so 2017,

Christian! Now we are in 2018,

right? Who knows what the Chuck and

Nancy tweets might guess in the new

year. I am hopeful that the

president has put some of that

rhetoric behind him as it relates to

those two Democrats and they can

find a way to work together. But as

we have all seen, with all those

Twitter characters, you never know

what he is going to do.

Good to see

you. You fly into JFK or Dulles

airport and feel like you have

landed in the Third World. You are

right about infrastructure spending,

but we have been hearing this

argument for the last ten years in

the United States, when money was

free and they didn't do it then. So

with Democrats facing the mid-term

elections, I am not sure they are

going to play ball as much as they

might do. Just saying! Let's move

on.

More than 300 female

Hollywood A-listers have launched

a campaign to fight sexual

harassment in all workplaces.

The campaign, called Time's Up,

includes stars such as Meryl Streep

and Jennifer Lawrence.

They've already raised $13 million

towards a legal defence fund

for poorer women affected

by harassment in all industries.

Our colleague Lucy

Hockings has more.

A full-page ad in the first

New York Times of 2018.

It begins "Dear sisters".

It's a letter addressed to every

woman who has had to fend

off sexual advances.

It's the work of 300 actresses,

directors, writers and others

from across the entertainment

industry who are determined to kick

off the new year with real

change in their industry,

and for women in low-paid work.

They call it Time's Up.

In 2017, Hollywood was overwhelmed

with allegations of sexual

abuse and misconduct

against some of its most

powerful players.

It began with a flood of allegations

against Harvey Weinstein,

one of the film industry's

biggest producers.

It led to Me Too, a global

initiative of women and men

sharing their stories of sexual

abuse and harassment.

And the movement shows no

sign of slowing down.

Oscar winners Natalie Portman, Emma

Stone and Cate Blanchett are all

among the supporters of Time's Up.

Their motives are clear.

They say Time's Up is a unified call

for change from women in

entertainment for women everywhere.

"We envisage nationwide

leadership that reflects

the world in which we live".

They're also raising money to fund

legal support for victims.

They want to use that fund to help

blue collar women who may be facing

sexual harassment or sexual

misconduct and have reported it

to their human resources office

and faced a backlash.

Many women in these circumstances

do not have the money

to fight big companies.

That is where this legal

defence fund will come in.

Hollywood is entering awards season,

and on the red carpet this year,

the project's organisers are asking

actresses to wear black.

The central promise of the movement,

though, lies away from the glamour -

holding workplaces accountable,

an end to gender inequality,

a rebalance of power

and a final sign off

In solidarity.

What is interesting about this,

Christian, and we have said it

before on the programme, is that

workplaces are not going to change

across the board unless it is not

just media celebrities and people in

the film industry and famous

politicians who are held to account.

It has to change for the waitresses

in restaurants, the cleaning staff

in the office buildings, the people

who work in the local post office.

If it doesn't take for them, the Me

Too movement will not have made a

safe workplace, which I think is the

primary goal of what we are seeing.

It can't just be revenge against a

few individuals or holding to

account of individuals, it has to be

across industries. That is what is

interesting.

Although they make

clear that they have the platform to

do this in their advertisement in

the New York Times. And if they

can't speak out, who can? The one

thing I like about what they are

focusing on a from the legal fund is

the nondisclosure arrangements,

which we have talked about before on

the programme, the idea that you can

pay someone to shut them up and then

perhaps carry on with the same

behaviour. That is a pattern we have

seen before. So if they put an end

to the nondisclosure agreements,

many would think that is a good

thing.

many would think that is a good

thing.

many would think that is a good

thing.

Now, reading more books is a popular

New Year's resolution

but what about reading an entire

bookshop - while managing

it at the same time?

That's what holidaymakers

are being given the chance to do

in Wigtown in Scotland -

as Lorna Gordon reports.

Between the hills and the sea

in south-west Scotland is a small

town where they like their books

- a lot.

Wigtown is Scotland's

National Book Town and among

the many bookshops here,

one is available to rent

for a week at a time.

It's run by enthusiasts

who want to be surrounded by books

while trying their hand

at selling some too.

Alison Drury is a Police

Community Support Officer

from Bicester, but not this week.

Instead, she is stacking

bookshelves and shifting stock.

You are paying for the privilege

of running a bookshop for a week.

What do your friends make of it?

A bit of a mixture.

I think some of them think that I'm

a bit eccentric and think that it's

a very strange thing to do.

By the same token, I've got some

friends who think it's extremely

exciting and are very excited for me

and actually a bit envious.

Have you been enjoying it?

I have.

You can tell, can't you?!

The temporary book store

boss has free rein.

Displays can change.

So too can the promotions.

The chance to run a bookshop for a

week or two

has proved popular.

People have come from as far

away as New Zealand,

North America and South Korea

to run this place.

There was a couple in their eighties

who came on honeymoon,

and others who liked the town

so much that they stayed.

This shop, which once

came close to closure,

turned around by those

who have a dream of running

a bookshop and want

the chance to test it out.

I think in everyone's life,

you have that "what if" voice.

What if I just owned a book shop

by the sea in Scotland?

We want to give people

the opportunity to do it.

This is actual real virtual reality,

where you can come and be in a book

shop and feel the cold and read

the books and enjoy the community

and kind of have little surprises

of an adventure along the way.

And if those who've come

on their bookshop holiday

are looking for ideas,

with Wigtown boasting 14 bookshops,

there is plenty here to inspire.

We love our bookshops,

we love our books, yeah,

and we've even got people coming

from far and wide to run a book shop

in Wigtown, imagine that!

It sounds a crazy idea,

but what a fantastic thing

for Wigtown, opening Wigtown

to the world, encouraging people to

come and share our love for books.

That passion for selling

books may be spreading.

There's interest from a Chinese firm

looking to open its own version

of The Open Book holiday business.

So successful has this Scottish one

been, it's booked up

for the next two years.

This is Beyond 100

Days from the BBC.

Coming up for viewers

on the BBC News Channel

and BBC World News -

first the tweet, then the reaction.

Protests in Pakistan

after President Trump accuses

the country of lies and deceit.

And after a bumper year on the US

stock market, will the economic

good times continue?

We'll get the thoughts

of The Cow Guy -

we'll explain.

That's still to come.

It's been a soggy evening out there

and now the winds are strengthening

ahead of storm Eleanor with an amber

one in force for the high winds.

This is for parts of Northern

Ireland, especially the east of

Northern Ireland and northern

England. And the storm is this lump

and this hulk of cloud here which is

ramping up towards the west of

Ireland and will be tracking across

northern areas of England through

the course of northern England and

Northern Ireland tonight. The

effects of the storm will be felt

across a much wider area down to the

south coast. Because the centre is

going here, doesn't mean that is the

only area that will be affected. For

a change, the north of Scotland will

not get too much wind on this

occasion. 70 to possibly 90 miles an

hour around the exposed coasts. That

is very windy. Very windy inland for

many towns and cities, 60 miles an

hour in many cities in England and

Wales. It will be a very blustery

rush hour, with lots of showers. By

that stage, we will have had

disruption and possibly some trees

down and a bit of damage to

buildings. This is what it looks

like in the afternoon. These are

average wind speeds. There are more

or less double the average wind

speed. In the north of Scotland,

there was hardly any wind at all.

But lots of showers around. A bit of

sunshine, so it will not be all bad,

but the winds will be slowly easing

tomorrow afternoon and into tomorrow

evening before the next weather

front comes in and brings us some

rain during the evening in Cornwall.

This time, it will not be as nasty

as Storm Eleanor. This is another

area of low pressure which will also

bring some run-of-the-mill wet and

windy weather. Double-figure

temperatures in the South. A bit

colder in Scotland. Friday is

looking pretty unsettled as well,

with some rain on the cards. But in

the short term, take care on the

roads.

This is Beyond 100 Days,

with me Katty Kay in Washington -

Christian Fraser's in London.

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali

Khamenei accuses enemies

of the country of deliberately

stirring the current

anti-government protests.

President Trump tweets his support

for the protestors -

praising them for acting

against what he calls Tehran's

"brutal and corrupt" regime.

Coming up in the next half hour -

President Trump blasts Pakistan

saying in exchange for aid they have

offered nothing but lies and deceit.

The words spark a sharp

reaction in Karachi.

What will the economy bring in 2018?

The White House is hoping

the good times continue.

We'll get the take

of our favourite trader.

Let us know your thoughts

by using the hashtag...

'Beyond-One-Hundred-Days'

President Trump may have been

on holiday, in Florida,

but it didn't stop him tweeting.

Perhaps the only surprising thing

was that the first tweet of 2018

wasn't about Hillary Clinton or Fake

news - instead it took

aim at Pakistan.

The United States has foolishly

given Pakistan more than $33 billion

in aid over the last 15 years,

and they have given us

nothing but lies and deceit,

thinking of our leaders as fools.

They give safe haven

to the terrorists we hunt

in Afghanistan, with little help.

No more!

Well those comments have led

to demonstrations in the city

of Karachi where the US flag

was burned and anti-American

slogans were shouted.

For more on the outburst

and the reaction it has sparked

we are joined now by Daniel Markey -

author of No Exit from Pakistan.

Thanks very much for joining us.

Presidents Obama and Bush made the

calculation that they would tolerate

the Pakistani government not act too

hard with them in order to keep them

stable.

Yes.

Because of the fear of

nuclear weapons falling into the

hands of extremists. President Trump

seems to be inching towards a

different decision.

Yeah, this looks

like a much more coercive approach

than

like a much more coercive approach

than anything we've seen before. I

would suggest both presidents Bush

and Obama before also had the hope

that by providing incentives the

United States could gradually win

Pakistan over to our way of thinking

about the war in Afghanistan.

Less

carrot and more stick?

Exactly.

What

would that look like?

A greater

stick is cutting off the carrots

that have been flowing. We're seeing

a restriction of aid across the

board. Likely cutting of $255

million in military assistance that

was being held in a kind of escrow

account to see if Pakistan would

come forward on attacking groups

like the aCannesy network and --

Hakani network. First the downsizing

the existing aid. One can imagine a

series of ratcheting up of moves

against Pakistan, targeting

sanctions or reduced support for

international loans from the IMF or

even more operations across the

border from Afghanistan into

Pakistan. These are the kinds of

ways we could ratchet up pressure on

Pakistan.

We were saying earlier

with Iran you need to push, but you

don't want to push too hard, because

this is a nuclear power. It's a

non-Nato ally, an important one.

16,000 US troops in Afghanistan, a

lot of the weapons and supplies that

go through to them goes through

those paths, they need Pakistan.

No,

they absolutely do. If you've got

anything over 10,000 forces in

Afghanistan, you've got to figure

out a way to move them in and out

and if you look at a map you don't

have many good options. I Republican

is blocked. Central -- Iran is

blocked. Central Asia is difficult

because of our relationship with

Russia. Pakistan has been the way,

especially for people and what we

call lethal assistance or lethal

equipment, anything from weapons to

vehicles that we wouldn't want

falling into the wrong hands, if

they go over land. Pakistan has some

leverage. As has been mentioned,

they have nuclear weapons. This is

not a small country either. This is

about 200 million people in an

important part of the world and they

have other friends, including the

Chinese, who have been promising and

delivering not just millions of

dollars or tens of millions but

billions of dollars in both

assistance and investment.

If the

White House goes ahead with the

kinds of carrots that you've been

talking about, incrementally -

Or

sticks.

Sticks that you've been

talking about, I'm getting confused

with my metaphors! Does that work?

Does that produce a Pakistan more

amenable to US and western interests

than the one President Obama got?

There's a small chance but not

likely. It's one thing to put

pressure on Pakistan. Pakistan has

important interests in the region.

It has to be a combination of

increased pressure on the one hand,

and offering some sense to Pakistan

that a change in its strategy, this

ending a double game, ending of

support to groups like the Hakani

network could work in its favour.

Right now we see little reason to

expect it would see the world that

way. They're still worried we're

going to leave Afghanistan, leave

the problems in place and leave them

without friends in order to help

them manage that situation. As of

right now, I see little chance that

this kind of incremental ratcheting

up of pressure would actually pay

off.

Daniel, thanks very much for

coming in.

The European Union has been working

with Libyan coastguards to reduce

the number of migrants crossing

the Mediterranean Sea.

But many of those intercepted end up

in detention centres in Libya,

where migrants complain

they are abused and used as slaves.

In this special report the BBC's

Stephanie Hegarty went to the city

of Benin in southern Nigeria to meet

those recently released.

Many of those it who have walked the

streets of Benin have dreamed of

going to Europe. Jackson and Felix

almost made it. But they were

arrested in a boat off the coast of

Libya and sent to prison.

They said when they were no longer

needed, they were dumped in the

desert. Rescued by a man driving by,

they were repatriated to Nigeria

with the help of the UN. We spoke to

several Nigerian migrants,

cross-checking the details of their

stories and each told us of the same

horrifying trend - prison

authorities, leasing or selling

migrants to local billses as labour.

-- businesses as labour. It's a new

development in a dark and brutal

industry in which prison guards and

traffickers

industry in which prison guards and

traffickers exploit migrants.

He was arrested in Libya in to 15

and brought to prison. He says the

man bought his freedom and forced

him to work for nothing. After three

months, he refused to continue.

Back in prison, he was told he was

going to be deported. Instead he was

taken to another location for seven

months. How many people due see die

there?

Almost 20 of them.

In this

hotel in Benin city, about 200 men

and women, who've just arrived from

Libya, are being processed and

received by the authorities here.

Many of them have stories of abuse

and mistreatment at the hands of the

authorities in the Libyan detention

centres, where they were held. At

least three people that I've spoken

to so far told me they were forced

to work for free or sold as slaves.

Again and again, the prison is

mentioned as a place of terrible

abuse. It's run by Libya's Ministry

of Interior, which itself is run by

two militia groups. Libya is in the

middle of a Civil War and these

militia are only nominally under the

UN recognised government in Tripoli.

The Libyan interior ministry didn't

respond to our attempts to set up an

interview. The UN's migration agency

says there are about 700,000

migrants still stuck in Libya.

Several African governments have

stepped up efforts to get their

citizens home. Thousands have been

repatriated in the past few weeks.

Carrying untold trauma, those that

do come home have to begin the hard

work of rebuilding their lives.

I often thought that I spent time on

these ships in the Med traina, that

one of the best ways -- Med traina,

that one of the best ways to tackle

this problem is to get some of the

stories of how hard it is in Libya

back to the home countries. A lot of

those stories don't go back, because

families have spent so much money

trying to send their loved ones

across the sea. For shame, they

don't want to send news back that

it's been a failure or that they've

found the dream life that they set

off for. The stories don't get back

so more and more come. I do think

that there is a lesson to be learned

about sending some of those horror

stories back to home countries, so

others don't follow in their foot

steps.

News in brief:

South Korea is in favour of direct

talks with North Korea

to discuss their participation

in the Winter Olympic Games.

The North's leader, Kim Jong-un,

said he was considering sending

a team to Pyeongchang in South Korea

for the event in February.

The South Korean President Moon

Jae-in wants the meeting to happen

next week to ensure the North's

delegation attends.

TRANSLATION:

We welcome that the

North Korea leader, Kim Jong Un,

expressed a willingness to send

athletes to the Olympics and hold

talks during his new year address. I

believe this is in response to our

proposal to make the Olympics an

opportunity to improve inter-Korean

relations and peace.

A second politician from Germany's

AFD party is being investigated for

allegedly inciting hatred on

Twitter. She expressed support for a

fellow politician who tweeted

discriminatory remarks about

migrants. The comments came after

the police sent a New Year's Eve

greeting in several languages. Al

Franken will officially resign his

seat today. This follows sexual

misconduct allegations. Many of the

accusations refer to incidents

before he elected in 2008. For many

Americans the new year has brought

record low temperatures.

The bitter cold weather has reached

as far south as Florida,

with warnings in place from Texas

to the Atlantic Coast.

The northeastern United States

is also set for another freeze

at the end of the week.

Great news for us (! ((

The Israeli parliament, the Knesset,

has voted through a law ((

that will make it harder

for the government to hand

over parts of Jerusalem

to the Palestinians in any

future peace deal.

The decision has been criticised

by Palestinians who want occupied

East Jerusalem as the capital

of a future independent state.

An Israeli minister said the change

would ensure the status of Jerusalem

as the country's "united capital".

However a Palestinian official

accused the US and Israel

of collaborating to destroy

the two-state solution

to the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

Yolande Knell is in

Jerusalem for us.

so what does the vote in the kinness

et actually change?

What this means

is it would take more Parliamentary

support for any future peace deal

with the Palestinians that involved

giving up control of part of

Jerusalem to have a much bigger

Parliamentary majority. Instead of

61 votes in the 120 seats Israeli

Parliament, it would now take a two

thirds majority, that's 80 seats. Of

course, this all really gets to the

future of Jerusalem, the holy city,

which is so much at the heart of the

Israel-Palestinian conflict. You

have the Israelis who see all of

Jerusalem as being their eternal,

undivided capital. The Eastern part

of the city was captured by Israel

in the 1967 war. It was later

annexed in a move that is not

internationally recognised. One of

the Israeli ministers, pushing

through this change in legislation,

said this would fortify Israel,

ensure that all of Jerusalem

remained eternally Israeli. For the

Palestinians, well, they want east

Jerusalem to be the capital of a

future independent Palestinian

state. We had the Palestinian

president's office saying that this

was a declaration of war on the

Palestinian people, when it's

considered with the announcement

made by President Trump just last

month, where he recognised Jerusalem

as being Israel's capital.

So what

extent was this vote a reflection of

President Trump's move that you just

referenced there, to move the

American embassy to Jerusalem?

This

was something that had long been

planned by Israeli law makers. But

certainly it was given extra

significance, extra weight following

President Trump's announcement. Mr

Trump has said that he would like to

have this year his peace plan

presented to both sides, the

Israelis and the Palestinians. He's

had his son-in-law, Jarrod Kushner,

and his aid and real estate lawyer

over the past year going between the

two sides, travelling around the

region, trying to come up with a

peace plan. After all the unrest

that there was over Mr Trump's

announcement about Jerusalem, though

he didn't specify the boundaries

that he saw of Israel's capital,

really that led to the Palestinians

saying that they would not accept

the US acting as a mediator in the

peace process and there was a senior

White House official who came out

saying that there should be a

cooling off period. So Mr Trump's

announcement was significant, but

this is something that had been

planned prior to that.

This is Beyond 100 Days.

Still to come -

He's known as the Cow Guy ,

we'll be asking our favourite

financial forecaster what 2018 has

in store for the US, after a bumper

year on the stock market.

The biggest hike in train fares for

five years -

that's what commuters faced this

morning as they returned to work

after the Christmas break.

The average price for tickets

rose by 3.4% today ,

with some commuters spending as much

as £5,000 on a season ticket.

The rail industry says the changes

will mean a better service ,

and investment for the future.

The Department for Transport said

price rises were capped

in line with inflation

and improved the network.

But unions say commuters

are being priced out as the burden

of paying for the rail system falls

increasingly on passengers.

Our transport correspondent

Richard Westcott has the story.

Can I see your tickets please?

Another new year, another fare rise.

Regulated season tickets go up by 3.

6% this year. It will add just shy

of £150 for the price for commuters

coming into the London on the line

from Hove in East Sussex. Nearly

£110 to a yearly ticket from

Liverpool to Manchester. And

commuters going into Birmingham from

Gloucester must find £140 more this

year. Many now pay between £3,000 to

£5,000 to get to work, with the most

pricey tickets in the south of

England. The Government says it's

spending record amounts on improving

the network, with more seats being

provided on newer trains and more

reliable electrified lines.

Campaigners argue that ordinary

people are being priced off our

trains, with the latest figures

showing a drop in the number of

journeys made using a season ticket.

I think this fare rise really throws

the spotlight on value for money.

Passengers want a more reliable

service. They want a better chance

ever getting a seat and better

information during disruption. The

train companies can help take some

of the sting out of this by offering

direct debit payments for a season

ticket and helping passengers pay

for this big lump sum.

They say

fares have been outstripping wages

for year and are calling for a price

freeze.

You're watching Beyond 100 Days...

Unemployment in the United States

is at a 17-year low.

The stock market is setting records.

Consumer confidence

is at its best level since 2000.

And guess who has been tweeting

about it, over the Christmas break.

"Jobs are kicking in and companies

are coming back to the US

Unnecessary regulations and high

taxes are being dramatically Cut,

and it will only get better.

MUCH MORE TO COME!"

There is a lot to like about

the economy during the first year

of the Trump administration.

There are many factors that make

the country's economic

fortunes go up and down.

But yes confidence, low taxes,

and less bureaucracy it all helps.

So is the President at the root

of the recent success and what do

the markets want to see in 2018?

My favourite trader,

Scott Shellady from TJM

Brokerage is back with us.

AKA the cowman.

happy new year. How are you?

Happy

new year to you.

Strong end to the

year for the Trump administration.

We've been through it, tax reform,

corporate rates slashed, cutting red

tape. Is there a direct correlation

between what he's doing and what the

economy's doing.

First, we always

like to co-flight a high stock

market with a great economy. That

doesn't always equal. He's not the

only one who will say that. A lot of

governments around the world will

try to make those two equal. They're

not the same. They're two different

time frames. Number two, he's

replaced sentiment. That's the

hardest thing to do. That's a

psychological thing. When you have

psychology on your side, raerning

than economic indicators, because

some of them still haven't picked up

since Obama left office. Psychology,

arguably, David and Goliath moment.

You can do things that you normally

couldn't.

So it gathers a pace?

That's why we've seen a lot of these

gains, even though you might not

have seen the economy do some of the

great things that he wants it to do

right now.

You guys are making

money, I hope you are, it's a good

time to make money, the fact of the

matter is, it's what 35% of the

Americans have money in the stock

market, wages, as is the case here

in the UK, are stagnant. They're not

rising. They're not sharing in the

wealth creation.

That's one of the

great unanswerables. We've got

unemployment below 4%. We're

probably going to tick below 4% this

year. How can we have no wage

inflation. How are employers not

competing for people not to work?

That's unanswered. We can't figure

that out. If you ask me, that's a

problem. I think Catty mentioned 0%

interest rates for a long time. We

can't get the housing market

catching on fire with even interest

rates at 1%. There's a problem with

that. There are some basic

underlying problems, but he's gone

after the psychology first and the

numbers second. I think that's a

winning trade. Like him or not, if

you can get the CEOs to start

spending, opening their pockets,

buying plants and equipment and real

estate, that's going to be a good

head start.

That's the big question,

are the CEOs going to do that,

invest in the economy, in jobs and

infrastructure or are they going to

do share buy backs and make their

shareholders happy? On confidence,

the issue of confidence, how come

Americans generally are feeling more

confident about the economy. I know

the stock market is doing super

well. Only 30% of Americans have

money invested on the stock market.

A lot of gains that we have seen

don't actually affect the average

American.

Well, the bad answer to

that is the trickle down effect. I

don't think it trickles down as

other people think it does. I think

probably less of Americans actually

have money in the stock market. So

we do see that gap between rich and

poor getting greater. However, they

feel more confident about their job

being there next year. The CEOs feel

more confident about maybe opening

up their pockets and buying that

plant. If the confidence and the

sentiment is there, even down to the

man on the factory floor from the

CEO up top, that's going to make a

big dinks. That's the hardest -- big

difference. That's the hardest thing

to turn around. GDP over 3% that's

great, to get the factory worker to

feel better about their situation,

that's the first time in eight years

we've seen that.

Is there an

economic down side to growing

inequality, a lot of economists

think the tax reform plan passed at

the end of the year will produce

more inequality, is there any down

side no that?

100%. When you get rid

of your middle class you get rid of

your economy. That's been a problem

as of late. Especially over the

Obama years, I'm not knocking him,

it happened with the Federal

Reserve, when they started to print

that free money, where do you take

that free money? A lot of folks took

it to the stock market U say 30% of

Americans have stocks. Our numbers

show only 15% of Americans own 85%

of stocks. That's where the gains

were. The people that already had

the money made a lot more money. And

the people that didn't don't. That's

the problem. When you lose your

middle class you lose the economy.

That will probably continue going.

Come on, what do you want in 2018,

what about the $1 trillion on

infrastructure?

Can you imagine with

the tax cuts we've had, the GDP

we've got and introducing an

infrastructure spending bill, that

would be fantastic. I'd like to see

what the Democrats would like to do

about that. They can't stand him so

much that if he came to Congress

with a cure for cancer, he'd be

voted down. It will be interesting

to see if we can get anything

through there. At the end of the

day, what a great starting point,

great tax cuts into the end of the

year. A GDP we've started to print

two or three or four in a row of

over 3%. I'm excited about what can

happen. The problem is and mark my

words for the rest of the year, we

haven't seen the volatility in the

market yet. If we get sm, that could

change everything (

Great to see you

as ever. Come back soon. Do you have

a new years resolution?

I knew you

were going to ask me that. No. My

resolution is no resolution.

And you

still don't have an answer.

I

thought about it for a long time and

I don't want to lie.

How about you?

OK, we had this discussion earlier.

Scott hasn't even got one. You've

got a list as long as my arm of new

year resolutions. I said I would try

to come up with one by the end of

the programme. What does that say

about the three of us? By the way,

you missed a question to Scott, you

should have asked him whether you

should be buying or selling your

huge portfolio.

We're going to talk

off cam ra.

LAUGHTER

That will cost him by the way.

Yeah,

OK. I have a resolution, just for

you Christian. Mine is to be less

derailed by individual tweets that

come out of the White House every

morning at 6am and focus more on the

big picture of what's happening in

the country. I guess it lasted one

day.

Amen to that. My team know that

I fell off the wagon in 2017. I've

started drinking tea with sugar

again. Two sugars.

I always drink

tea with sugar.

When you say I have

tea and two sugars, you look at you

like you're a pariah, you're a

non-person. It used to be smoking

and drinking, now it's, "You take

sugar? You do what? I've got to get

rid of the sugar.

OK, you get rid of

the sugar.

It's expensive.

LAUGHTER

I like it.

You should have been

buying sugar futures. I think you

should not go to California. I was

out there filming before the

Christmas break. In California,

they've given up eating balsamic

vinegar in their salad dressings

because it has too much sugar in it.

The state of fads...

We're going to

die of boredom people! That's what's

going to kill us. You're not allowed

to do anything any more.

Did you

have a good time off, by the way,

good break?

Yeah, non-Twitter. Do

you know what, ten days without

Twitter ah, my word.

Better people,

right.

It's an evil.

That is it.

I

love you all to my followers. Just

ten days without it. Loved it. See

you tomorrow.

From both of us,

goodbye.