A “no photograph upon landing” announcement punctured the serene silence of the cabin as I gazed at the snow-capped peaks outside our airplane window, a stark reminder that we were entering a land of profound beauty and immense political sensitivity.

Our Air China flight from Beijing carried not just my cameraman and me, but also about two dozen other foreign journalists, all accompanied by a team of Chinese officials. We were headed to Tibet, a place where access is as guarded as its ancient treasures.

We usually avoid government-organized media tours, wary of the predictable agendas and restrictions. Yet, for Tibet, there is no alternative.

The Tibetan Autonomous Region remains the only place in China where all foreigners – especially foreign journalists – are barred entry without prior authorization.

Our requests to report from the ground have mostly been met with polite, but firm denials – including in January, when a powerful earthquake struck the region, killing more than 120 people.

For centuries, Tibet was mostly independent from China – with the Tibetans possessing ethnic, linguistic and religious identities starkly different from those of the Han Chinese. On a few occasions in history, Tibet fell under the rule of emperors in Beijing, most recently during the Qing dynasty starting in the 18th Century. After the 1912 collapse of Qing, China’s last imperial dynasty, Tibet enjoyed de facto independence though it was never recognized by China or much of the international community.

The Communist forces, emerging victorious from a bloody Chinese civil war, marched into Tibet in 1950 and formally annexed it into the newly founded People’s Republic of China the following year. Beijing has maintained a tight grip on the Himalayan region since the 14th Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader, fled to India in 1959 after a failed uprising against Chinese rule. In the decades since, the Communist Party has swiftly cracked down on any unrest and enforced policies that critics say are intended to weaken the Tibetan identity.

Landing in late March at Gonggar Airport, one of the world’s highest at nearly 12,000 feet, just outside the Tibetan capital Lhasa, the thin air was an immediate signal to slow down as breathing grew labored and a headache began to develop. Stepping into Tibet, long known as “the roof of the world,” was an immersion into a different rhythm of life, dictated by the altitude’s power.

It had been 16 years since my last visit, a journey cut short by altitude sickness. This time, armed with ibuprofen, I was determined to document the changes that had swept through Tibet – or rather, “Xizang,” the new official English name adopted by authorities and indicated in our schedule. The moniker – transliterated from the Chinese name for the region – is a linguistic battleground reflecting deeper geopolitical tensions between Beijing and critics of its Tibet policy.

En route from the gleaming airport terminal to our hotel in Lhasa, the nearly empty freeway and unoccupied high-rise apartments spoke to China’s massive investments in developing infrastructure in Tibet. The region is still the country’s poorest with the lowest life expectancy.

Imposing portraits of China’s top leader Xi Jinping, alongside another picture featuring him and his four predecessors, dotted the highway and adorned almost every public building, an omnipresent emphasis on loyalty to the ruling Communist Party.

This overt display echoed the main themes – ethnic harmony and common prosperity – reinforced on every foreign media trip to Tibet, ours included. The weeklong itinerary was a curated mix: a high-profile press conference (on human rights achievements in Tibet), economic success stories (at, among others, the “world’s highest cookware factory”), tourist hotspots (ranging from yak farms to peach blossom fields) and cultural spectacles (culminating in a lavishly produced outdoor musical retelling the saga of the most famous Chinese-Tibetan royal marriage in the 7th Century).

On the streets of Lhasa, banners and posters celebrated the 66th anniversary of the “liberation of a million Tibetans from feudal serfdom” – the official description of pre-Communist-takeover Tibet.

Perhaps due to the controlled access to Tibet and China’s extensive high-tech surveillance network, I didn’t notice visible heavy security – even around temples and other sensitive sites.

A spiritual destination

The region hasn’t seen any major unrest in more than a decade. The last flareup in the early 2010s involved a string of self-immolation incidents that critics called a desperate cry against the Chinese government’s ever-tightening grip on Tibetan society.

Since then, Tibet has seen an unprecedented surge in tourism, predominantly from mainland China with visitors flocking to the region for spiritual exploration. A record 64 million people visited Tibet in 2024, according to government records – a more than tenfold increase from the roughly 6 million visitors in 2010.

Although March wasn’t peak season for Tibet travel, domestic visitors crowded tourist attractions. Clad in traditional local costumes and posing on Lhasa’s bustling centuries-old Barkhor Street, Chinese tourists often seemed to outnumber Tibetan pilgrims, who prostrated themselves on the stone ground and walked clockwise around temples while spinning hand-held prayer wheels – under the curious gaze of selfie stick-wielding onlookers.

If not for the picture-perfect backdrop of golden roofs of Buddhist temples – surrounded by majestic mountains and glistening in abundant sunshine – Lhasa could sometimes look like just another small city in China, especially outside its historical center.

Alongside gift shops and supermarkets, Sichuan restaurants dotted almost every street corner – a testament to the popularity of the Chinese cuisine as much as the main origin of Han migration from the neighboring province into Tibet – long said to be a source of tension between the two ethnic groups over perceived economic inequality.

A smattering of foreign tourists had also reappeared following the post-pandemic re-opening of Tibet, including a group at our hotel, an InterContinental property. Western brands – from major hotels to fast-food chains – appear to operate in Tibet without notable protests or criticisms of the past.

The undisputed top tourist attraction in Lhasa remains the Potala Palace, the former winter residence of the Dalai Lamas, spiritual leaders of Tibetan Buddhism, until the current holder of that position was forced into exile.

Now living in Dharamsala, India, and revered globally as a Nobel peace laureate, the 14th Dalai Lama is labeled by the Chinese government as a “wolf in monk’s robes” and an “anti-China separatist” – despite his declaration that he seeks only genuine autonomy, not independence, for his homeland.

More than two million people visited the Potala last year, paying up to $27 to tour the sprawling structure. While guides offered details on the architecture and the palace’s storied history, the current Dalai Lama was conspicuously absent from the narrative, especially his recent pronouncement that his successor, or reincarnation, must be born “in the free world” – meaning outside China.

When questioned, monks and officials in Tibet parroted Beijing’s official party line: “The reincarnation of each Dalai Lama must be approved by the central government and the search must take place within China,” Gongga Zhaxi with the Potala Palace administration told me.

“That the reincarnation should be recognized by the central government has been settled for many years,” echoed La Ba, a senior monk at Jokhang Temple, the holiest in Tibetan Buddhism.

Their response – in line with Xi’s increasing emphasis on “Sinicizing religions” in the country – contrasted with a memorable and unexpected moment from my 2009 trip. At Jokhang Temple, a young monk told me that, as a faithful Tibetan Buddhist, he recognized and respected the Dalai Lama – before being whisked away by officials.

The Tibetan government-in-exile in India dismissed the stance on the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation proclaimed by the officially atheist Chinese government, stressing that “His Holiness is the only legitimate soul who can decide.”

The prospect of the process going smoothly seems to have all but vanished – after Beijing forced the disappearance in 1995 of a young boy recognized by the Dalai Lama as the new Panchen Lama, Tibet’s second-highest spiritual figure who traditionally plays a leading role in the search for the Dalai Lama’s reincarnation.

The boy, Gedhun Choekyi Nyima, who has never been seen since, is a college graduate who leads a normal life, according to a Chinese government spokesman in 2020. Despite denunciations by the Dalai Lama and his supporters, Beijing has installed its own Panchen Lama – triggering a three-decade-old dispute that continues to loom large, a sobering reminder of the stakes at play.

High in the Himalayas

Our journey continued via Tibet’s only bullet train service, a marvel of engineering designed to withstand the harsh climate of the Tibetan Plateau. As the train sped through tunnels and over bridges at 10,000 feet above sea level, the landscape unfolded in breathtaking panoramas as we sat in carriages equipped with automated oxygen supply systems and special windows resistant to the area’s high UV levels.

Yet, this 435-kilometer rail link between Lhasa and the eastern Tibetan city of Nyingchi is more than just a mode of transportation – it is a symbol of China’s ambition to integrate this remote region with its distinct culture into the mainstream.

In Nyingchi, we visited a public boarding school – a hot topic as both the Dalai Lama and UN experts have voiced concerns over intensifying assimilation of Tibetans. About a million Tibetan children from rural areas have been reportedly sent to these government-run schools, where the language of instruction is allegedly almost exclusively Chinese, and living conditions are said to be cramped.

“All of our efforts have effectively safeguarded Tibetan children’s right to receive a high-quality education,” said Xu Zhitao, vice chairman of the Tibet Autonomous Region, when I asked about the controversy surrounding the schools.

At Bayi District Junior High, most of the 1,200 students were Tibetan – some we talked to said they took an equal number of lessons in their native tongue and Mandarin. A group of giggling Tibetan eighth-graders spoke proudly of their culture and traditions – but when asked about Tibetan Buddhism and the Dalai Lama, they became hesitant to answer and their voices trailed off. Young or old, people showed they knew the boundaries that could not be crossed.

With growing tensions between Beijing and Washington, China’s uneasy relations with its neighbor India – a key US partner – has made Tibet even more strategically important as the two Asian powers jostle for territory and influence in the far-flung area.

Controversial infrastructure projects and even bloody military clashes have marred their disputed border region in recent years.

But a more pressing concern for both Beijing and New Delhi is perhaps the inevitable passing of the 14th Dalai Lama, who turns 90 in July. If a scenario of “dueling Dalai Lamas” were to emerge as a result of China’s policy, it could shake the foundation of Tibetan religion and society – potentially unleashing fresh anger or even instability – in the high Himalayas.

Ukraine managed to wrangle some more favorable terms out of the United States before signing the long-awaited minerals deal on Wednesday.

The agreement on natural resources was finally struck late on Wednesday, after weeks of tense bargaining that at times turned sour and temporarily halted Washington’s aid to Ukraine.

Kyiv eventually convinced US President Donald Trump to drop some of his key demands but failed to make American security guarantees part of the agreement.

Ukrainian officials touted the final accord as an equal partnership between Kyiv and Washington – a notable shift from some of the earlier drafts which were described by Ukraine’s leader President Volodymyr Zelensky as the US asking him to “sell my country.”

What’s in the deal?

Aid: Crucially, the deal does not call for Kyiv to reimburse the US for the aid it has already received – a key concession from Trump who has long framed the agreement as Ukraine “paying back” the US.

Washington initially demanded a $500 billion share of Ukraine’s rare earths and other minerals in exchange for the aid it has already provided to Kyiv. When Zelensky rejected that idea, Trump called him “a dictator.”

Instead, the agreement that was inked on Wednesday says that future American military assistance to Ukraine will count as part of the US investment into a joint reconstruction investment fund that will be used to pour money into Ukraine’s natural resources.

Natural resources: The deal gives the US preferential rights to mineral extraction in Ukraine and states that Kyiv will have the final say in what and where is being mined. Ukraine will also retain the ownership of the subsoil.

“All resources on our territory and in our territorial waters belong to Ukraine. It is the Ukrainian state that determines where and what to extract,” said Ukraine’s Economy Minister Yulia Svyrydenko, who signed the deal on behalf her country.

And although Trump has referred to the agreement as a “rare earth” deal, the accord signed on Wednesday goes well beyond that by including other natural resources such as oil, natural gas, gold and copper.

The tone: In a win for Ukraine, the deal also adopts a strong language on the war with Russia itself. It points at Moscow as the aggressor in the conflict, diverging from some of Trump’s previous false statements about Ukraine and Zelensky being responsible for the war.

The deal also spells out the goal of the agreement as “a peaceful, sovereign and resilient Ukraine” – a notable step away from Trump saying earlier this year that, “Ukraine may be Russia some day.”

EU guarantees: It also keeps the door open for Ukraine’s potential future membership in the European Union, saying that investment needs to be made in accordance with Ukraine’s obligations as an EU candidate state. It adds that if Ukraine was to join the bloc in the future, this deal would be renegotiated “in good faith.”

A boost for the US: But the terms of the agreement also show the US has secured a host of advantages for itself.

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent characterized it as a “historic economic partnership,” saying in a statement that it “signals clearly to Russia that the Trump Administration is committed to a peace process centered on a free, sovereign, and prosperous Ukraine over the long term.”

It also says that if a conflict arises between the wording of the agreement and Ukraine’s law, the deal will have a legal precedent.

What is missing from the deal?

Security questions: Ukraine has dropped its key demand that the US provides security guarantees as part of this agreement. It was this demand that ultimately led to the shouty meeting between Zelensky and Trump in the Oval Office in February.

Trump then refused to provide security guarantees, saying he wanted Ukraine to sign the agreement first and talk about guarantees later.

At the time, Zelensky refused, but Ukrainian officials have since indicated that they believe that US investment and the presence of American companies in Ukraine will make Washington more interested in Ukraine’s security.

Exclusive access for the US: While it ensures the US receives preferential access to Ukraine’s mineral riches, the deal doesn’t guarantee any exclusive rights.

Existing resources: The deal is limited to new projects, which means the US and Ukraine will have to invest in order to see profits. Existing mining operations that are already generating revenue for the Ukrainian government are excluded.

How does it play into the peace process?

The Ukrainian government has in the past made the argument that its mineral deposits are one of the reasons the West should support Ukraine – to prevent these strategically important resources from falling into Russian hands.

Experts agree with that idea. Liam Peach and Hamad Hussain, economists at Capital Economics, wrote in an analyst note on Thursday that the agreement “provides some reassurance that the Trump administration is not planning on abandoning Ukraine altogether” because it establishes US economic interests in Ukraine.

Why are the minerals so important?

Materials such as graphite, lithium, uranium and the 17 chemical elements known as rare earths are critical for economic growth and national security.

They are essential to the production of electronics, clean energy technology, including wind turbines, energy networks and electric vehicles, as well as some weapons systems.

China has long dominated the global production of rare earth minerals and other strategically important materials, leaving Western countries desperate for other alternative sources – including Ukraine.

The US largely depends on imports for the minerals it needs. Of the 50 minerals classed as critical, the US was entirely dependent on imports of 12 and more than 50% dependent on imports of a further 16, according to the United States Geological Survey, a government agency.

Ukraine, meanwhile, has deposits of 22 of these 50 critical materials, according to the Ukrainian government.

The country has some of the world’s largest deposits of graphite, lithium, titanium, beryllium and uranium, all of which are classed by the US as critical minerals. Some of these reserves are in areas that are currently under Russian occupation.

Hip hop Irish trio Kneecap is being investigated by UK counter-terrorism police after videos emerged allegedly showing the band calling for politicians to be killed and shouting “up Hamas, up Hezbollah.”

It comes after the group, who are vocal critics of Israel’s war in Gaza, came under fire for their pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel messaging at the Coachella music festival last month.

The British police investigation follows widespread criticism of the band’s alleged comments, which led to several of their upcoming gigs being canceled. Some lawmakers are also calling for Glastonbury organizers to drop Kneecap from next month’s festival line-up.

Meanwhile, dozens of musicians and artists have signed an open letter supporting the group’s right to freedom of expression.

In recent days, footage has been circulating online that appears to show one of the group’s members shouting “up Hamas, up Hezbollah” in November last year. Separately, video from November 2023 appeared to show one member of the group, who are from Northern Ireland, saying: “The only good Tory is a dead Tory. Kill your local MP.” Tory is another word for Conservative, and MP is an abbreviation of Member of Parliament. In the past decade, two British MPs – Jo Cox and David Amess – have been murdered.

Kneecap has apologized to the families of Cox and Amess. It said it has never supported Hamas or Hezbollah and that the footage circulating online has been “deliberately taken out of all context” as part of a “smear campaign” following their criticism of Israel and the United States in regards to the war in Gaza.

London’s Metropolitan Police Service said in a statement Thursday that it was aware of the footage and that counter-terrorism officers are investigating.

“Both videos were referred to the Counter Terrorism Internet Referral Unit for assessment by specialist officers, who have determined there are grounds for further investigation into potential offences linked to both videos,” the police statement said.

Backlash

Katie Amess, daughter of Conservative lawmaker David Amess, who was fatally stabbed in a 2021 attack while meeting with his constituents, has called Kneecap’s rhetoric “abhorrent.”

“(It) poses a direct threat to the safety and well-being of elected officials and the democratic institutions they represent,” she said in a statement provided to the PA Media news agency.

Amess commended the action taken by law enforcement and called for those who incite “violence and hatred” to be held accountable.

“As a society, we must stand united against all forms of extremism and ensure that our public spaces, including artistic and cultural venues, are not exploited to propagate messages of hate,” Amess said.

Both videos have been widely circulated online in wake of the band’s Coachella set, where they led the crowd to chant “Free Free Palestine,” criticized Israel’s campaign in Gaza – which has killed more than 52,000 Palestinians, according to the ministry of health there – and also criticized US support for the war.

Brendan Cox, whose wife was stabbed and shot to death in 2016 by a far-right extremist while meeting with her constituents, told Sky News that the band’s apology was “not enough.”

“What’s clear (about the video) is that it wasn’t a joke, that it wasn’t out of context, that it was incitement to violence against members of parliament,” he said. Cox added that Kneecap’s comments “overstepped the mark in a frankly grotesque way,” putting them on the “wrong side of people who might agree with them” on issues, such as Gaza and Northern Ireland.

Since the videos emerged, a string of the band’s scheduled performances have been canceled.

The group said on X that it would not be performing at Hurricane or Southside Festival this year – two of Germany’s biggest music festivals – and announced three concerts in Berlin, Hamburg and Cologne instead, which have since been canceled too.

Another concert scheduled to take place at the Eden Project in Cornwall, southwest England, has been canceled.

Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch told ITV News Wednesday she believes the band should be prosecuted for incitement. “There are people in jail for saying things that are not as bad as what Kneecap have said… they’ve been avoiding justice for far too long,” she told the broadcaster.

Band’s supporters

Others have come out in support of the group, with several artists signing an open letter calling out the “clear, concerted attempt to censor and ultimately deplatform” the band.

“In a democracy, no political figures or political parties should have the right to dictate who does and does not play at music festivals or gigs that will be enjoyed by thousands of people,” read the letter, which was signed by musicians including Pulp, Paul Weller and Massive Attack.

“Kneecap are not the story. Gaza is the story. Genocide is the story,” wrote the band on X, echoing a separate statement of support from Massive Attack.

Kneecap’s manager, Daniel Lambert, told Irish broadcaster RTÉ Tuesday that the controversy “has nothing to do with Kneecap… it’s about telling the next young band… that you cannot speak about Palestine.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Thursday that defeating Israel’s enemies is more important than securing the release of the remaining hostages in Gaza.

While the prime minister acknowledged that freeing the 59 remaining hostages is a “very important goal,” he described Israel’s fight against its enemies as the “supreme objective” of the war.

“We have many objectives, many goals in this war. We want to bring back all of our hostages,” Netanyahu said. “That is a very important goal. In war, there is a supreme objective. And that supreme objective is victory over our enemies. And that is what we will achieve.”

Netanyahu’s remarks, which came on Israel’s Independence Day, mark the first time that the prime minister has explicitly described returning the hostages as a secondary goal of the war. He has previously described defeating Hamas and securing the release of the hostages as the primary goals of Israel’s war in Gaza.

His comments drew a backlash from representatives of hostage families.

“Prime minister, the return of the hostages is not ‘less’ important – it is the supreme goal that should guide the government of Israel,” the Hostages and Missing Families Forum said in a statement. “The families of the hostages are concerned.”

Netanyahu’s comments put him at odds with the majority of the Israeli public, which overwhelmingly supports a deal to release all the hostages and end the war in Gaza, according to recent opinion polls.

But it puts the prime minister in the company of Israel’s far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who recently made similar comments.

“We need to tell the truth – bringing back the hostages is not the most important goal. It is, of course, a very, very, very, very important goal,” Smotrich said last week. “But anyone who wants to destroy Hamas and eliminate the possibility of another October 7 must understand that in Gaza, there can’t be a situation where Hamas remains present and intact.”

Members of Netanyahu’s governing coalition have been pushing the prime minister to continue fighting. Senior Israeli officials have warned for weeks that the military will intensify its operations in Gaza if there is no ceasefire agreement with Hamas.

Israel says its bombardment of Gaza, coupled with a two-month total blockade, is an attempt to put pressure on Hamas to make concessions in ceasefire negotiations. Israel has vowed to destroy Hamas and said it cannot continue to rule the enclave.

Pressure mounts on Netanyahu

This is the second time this week that Netanyahu has faced backlash from the families of hostages. On Monday, his wife Sara was overheard on a microphone saying that “fewer” than 24 hostages are still alive in Gaza. The remark outraged families and prompted demands for clarity on what the government knows about their loved ones’ fate, as well as questions on why the prime minister’s wife has sensitive information about their loved ones that they do not.

“You sowed indescribable panic in the hearts of the families of the hostages – families already living in agonizing uncertainty,” the forum said in a statement. “If there is intelligence or new information regarding the condition of our loved ones, we demand full disclosure.”

Israel has publicly said in recent weeks that it believes up to 24 of the 59 remaining hostages are still alive. Sara Netanyahu’s claim appears to be an indication that the government may have information that some of the 24 hostages have died.

Pressure has also been mounting on Netanyahu from military reservists who have become increasingly vocal in their opposition to the war, with several public letters saying that the Gaza war mainly serves the political and personal interests of officials, not the country’s security interests.