The Economist has published a lengthy report on the mass uprisings in Tibet earlier this year.
The article is written from magazine's signature centrist point of view, and takes a relatively non-judgmental stance. The most interesting part is the author's musings on China's response to the riots in March.
In a perplexing course of action, China did not react to the initial unrest with their usual level of brutal efficiency (several people were still killed). As a result, the chaos was allowed to spread far further than it may have otherwise.
The article then goes on to offer cynical speculation on the motives of the Chinese government for their actions at the time(an excuse for the later wide-scale clampdown of the region, or caution leading up to the Olympics?), and then, the motives of all involved parties in general.