Daily RC and Vocabulary 29th January 2026

What is unfolding in Venezuela is naked imperialism. Having ordered the abduction of a sitting head of state and imposed a naval blockade on a sovereign nation, U.S. President Donald Trump declared that Washington would now “run” Venezuela. That he endorsed Acting President Delcy Rodriguez rather than the opposition does not diminish the criminality of these actions; it merely reveals their purpose, which was not about democracy or narcotics but about control of Venezuela’s oil. 

This arrangement places Ms. Rodriguez in a difficult position. The Bolivarian movement was built on resisting precisely this kind of American domination over Venezuela’s resources. Yet her government, battered by a decade of sanctions, must now negotiate with the very power that kidnapped her predecessor. Her statement on Sunday, “Enough already of Washington’s orders over politicians in Venezuela”, reveals the strain that she is under. She has complied with American demands on oil trade and released political prisoners as a “peace gesture”. But she cannot surrender Venezuelan sovereignty entirely without losing the Chavista base that sustains her government. The more pressure Washington applies on Caracas, the more it risks the very instability it claims to want to prevent. If the U.S. wanted a productive economic relationship with Venezuela, it should not have embarked on this marauding path. The sanctions that devastated Venezuela’s economy were American policy. The migration crisis that Mr. Trump cited to justify intervention was a consequence of those sanctions. Now, Washington offers to ease the pressure it created, but only if Venezuela submits to exclusive American control over its resources. This is not diplomacy; it is extortion. The world cannot remain silent. When Russia violated Ukrainian sovereignty, the international community condemned it and imposed sanctions. Mr. Trump’s ‘Donroe Doctrine’ threatens not just Venezuela, but the foundations of the international order. If it remains unchallenged internationally, no nation in the Global South can be safe.

 

Meaning: Practical and realistic rather than idealistic

Example:

India adopted a pragmatic approach by using quota-based tariff reductions instead of full liberalisation.

Meaning: Very difficult to resolve or manage

Example:

Disagreements over automobiles proved intractable and stalled India–EU trade talks for nearly a decade.

Meaning: Something granted in negotiations to reach agreement

Example:

India offered tariff concessions on European exports while protecting sensitive sectors like dairy.

Meaning: The other party involved in a negotiation or transaction

Example:

India demonstrated maturity while negotiating with a powerful counterparty like the European Union.

Meaning: To obstruct or cause the failure of a process

Example:

Auto sector disagreements derailed the India–EU FTA negotiations in 2013.

Meaning: Growing or expanding rapidly

Example:

Quota-based wine tariffs safeguard India’s burgeoning domestic wine industry.

Meaning: To counterbalance or compensate for something

Example:

The gains from the FTA must be realised quickly to offset the impact of U.S. tariff pressures.

Meaning: The quality of being extremely difficult to solve

Example:

The intractability of automobile market access delayed the finalisation of the FTA.

Meaning: Formal approval of an agreement by competent authorities

Example:

The FTA will come into force only after ratification by the European Parliament and EU member states.

Meaning: Reduction of government restrictions, especially in trade

Example:

India followed calibrated trade liberalisation while ensuring protection for strategic sectors.

 

Q1.

The author highlights the quota-based arrangements for automobiles and wine primarily to demonstrate:

A. India’s retreat from its protectionist stance

B. The EU’s dominance in high-value manufacturing

C. A negotiated compromise balancing domestic protection and market access

D. The inevitability of liberalisation in large economies

Q2.

Which of the following best describes the author’s assessment of India’s overall negotiation strategy in the FTA?

A. Opportunistic and driven by geopolitical compulsions

B. Defensive and cautious due to domestic political pressures

C. Mature and pragmatic in dealing with structural trade differences

D. Reactive to European demands rather than proactive

Q3.

The reference to the failed 2013 negotiations serves mainly to:

A. Criticise the rigidity of past trade policies

B. Illustrate continuity in unresolved trade disputes

C. Highlight how previously contentious issues were resolved through innovation

D. Underscore Europe’s reluctance to engage with India

Q4.

The concern regarding delayed implementation of the FTA implies that:

A. Trade agreements are effective only when accompanied by immediate tariff elimination

B. Bureaucratic delays within the EU may dilute India’s negotiated gains

C. India’s domestic industries are unprepared for global competition

D. European markets are likely to close further in the near future

Q5.

Which inference can be most reasonably drawn from the author’s discussion on CBAM?

A. India successfully negotiated an exemption from climate-linked tariffs

B. CBAM represents a discriminatory trade instrument against developing nations

C. Climate-linked trade measures will increasingly constrain traditional FTAs

D. CBAM’s impact on India’s exports will remain marginal

Q1 → C

The examples show a balanced compromise—protecting domestic sectors while enabling selective access for European producers.

Q2 → C

The editorial repeatedly stresses maturity and pragmatism, especially in handling long-standing disagreements.

Q3 → C

The 2013 failure is used to contrast past deadlock with current adaptive solutions.

Q4 → B

The author worries that procedural delays in EU ratification could reduce the real-world impact of the deal.

Q5 → C

CBAM is presented as a structural, forward-looking constraint on trade agreements rather than a temporary issue.

 

Q1.

A practical approach to negotiation or policy-making that focuses on workable outcomes rather than ideology.

A. Idealism

B. Pragmatism

C. Dogmatism

D. Utopianism

Q2.

The formal approval of a treaty or agreement by a competent authority, making it legally binding.

A. Accession

B. Endorsement

C. Ratification

D. Validation

Q3.

The quality of being extremely difficult to resolve or manage.

A. Volatility

B. Rigidity

C. Intractability

D. Ambiguity

Q4.

A fixed and limited quantity of goods permitted to be traded under preferential terms.

A. Subsidy

B. Tariff

C. Embargo

D. Quota

Q5.

Something that counterbalances or compensates for a loss or disadvantage.

A. Deficit

B. Offset

C. Burden

D. Liability

Q1 → B (Pragmatism)

Explanation: Pragmatism emphasises practical solutions over theoretical or ideological purity.

Q2 → C (Ratification)

Explanation: Ratification is the official approval that brings an international agreement into force.

Q3 → C (Intractability)

Explanation: Intractability refers to resistance to solution or compromise.

Q4 → D (Quota)

Explanation: A quota limits the quantity of goods that can be traded, often to protect domestic industries.

Q5 → B (Offset)

Explanation: An offset neutralises or compensates for a negative impact.