DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS QUIZ – 19 January, 2026

Explanation:
India depends heavily on imports for rare earths and lithium. Disruptions in global supply chains affect its clean energy and manufacturing goals. The EU–U.S. dispute highlights mineral geopolitics. It may encourage diversification of sourcing. This has implications for India’s strategic planning. Hence, supply chain impact is most relevant.

Explanation:
The WTO sets rules governing global trade and tariffs. It allows member states to challenge unfair trade practices. Though its dispute mechanism has faced challenges, it remains central. The WTO promotes non-discrimination and transparency. Many trade conflicts are routed through it. Therefore, WTO is the correct institution.

Explanation:
Despite being allies, the EU and U.S. frequently differ on trade policy. The Greenland issue reflects unilateral versus multilateral approaches. Europe prefers predictable, rules-based trade systems. The U.S. action challenges EU economic interests. This reveals tensions over leadership in global trade. Thus, trade and sovereignty remain a key fault line.

Explanation:
Tariffs raise the cost of imports, giving domestic producers a competitive edge. Governments also use tariffs strategically to influence supply chains. While protectionist, tariffs can trigger retaliation. In this case, they are linked to strategic resource control. Such measures often strain global trade relations. Hence, protection of domestic and strategic interests is the main objective.

Explanation:
Greenland’s mineral resources are central to clean energy technologies such as wind turbines and EVs. Tariffs could increase costs and disrupt supply chains. This directly affects climate transition goals of the EU. The dispute highlights the vulnerability of green industries to trade barriers. Resource security is now a strategic concern. Hence, clean energy and raw materials are most affected.