Why is Paris putting glass walls around its Eiffel Tower?

The wall may reflect changes in the fabric of Parisian life following terrorist attacks, as officials beef up security and police powers.

Kamil Zihnioglu/AP
French riot police officers patrol under the Eiffel Tower on June 10, 2016 before a Euro 2016 soccer match between France and Romania, in Paris. Paris authorities say Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017, they are proposing to replace the metal security fencing around the Eiffel Tower with a more aesthetically pleasing glass wall.

Parisian authorities are planning to erect an 8-foot wall of reinforced glass around the Eiffel Tower, in a security measure designed to function as a more aesthetically pleasing replacement of a metal fence that went up last year for the Euro 2016 soccer championship.

Paris officials have also proposed a $318-million modernization of the 128-year-old monument that includes better elevators and lights, more security, and a renovated visitor entrance, according to CNN Money. Officials say that the new see-through panels will afford visitors a view of the monument from the popular Champ de Mars park and the Iena Bridge, unlike the metal fences.

"We will replace the metal grids to the north and south with glass panels which will allow Parisians and visitors a very pleasant view of the monument," the assistant mayor for tourism, Jean-Francois Martins, told the BBC

The construction seems a symbol of how conspicuous security measures deployed by the French government in the wake of terrorist attacks have gradually become normalized, especially in tourist-heavy Paris.  

"The terror threat remains high in Paris and the most vulnerable sites, led by the Eiffel Tower, must be the object of special security measures," Mr. Martins added. 

The announcement one week after a machete attack on French troops stationed outside the Louvre Museum ended with the attacker, Egyptian citizen Abdullah Reda Al-Hamahmy, shot four times. He has told officials he wanted to damage paintings and “avenge the Syrian people,” according to Reuters. The museum was reopened last weekend after closing briefly, in what was perhaps a testament to much of the city's “business-as-usual” attitude toward the incident. 

The November 2015 massacre in Paris, orchestrated by a man suspected by Belgian authorities of being an Islamic State fighter, was a turning point for security agencies in France and across Europe, with governments considering new means of intelligence-sharing and rethinking privacy safeguards, as The Christian Science Monitor’s Rachel Stern reported last February:

"Intelligence agencies are talking now, both because of the panic and, quite frankly, practically because lives are at stake," said Scott Stewart, vice president of tactical analysis at Stratfor, a global intelligence and advisory firm. "Politically we can’t be seen dropping that same ball again." Before the attacks, only half of the European Union's 28 countries participated in intelligence exchange through Europol, the EU's law enforcement agency, according to press spokesperson Jan Op Gen Oorth. Now all belong, and three are in the process of joining.

In France, the expansion of policing has been particularly aggressive, including the extension of emergency security measures originally put in place after the Paris attacks.

But as the Monitor’s Sara Miller Llana and Colette Davidson wrote in the days after those attacks, some French still worry about going too far toward a “whatever it takes” mentality.

“Not whatever it takes,” Paris resident Antoine Lippen told the Monitor at the time. “It would be too dangerous to block our own liberties when we know terrorist attacks are always cowardly attacks attacking at the place and time you least expect it, so there is always a breach in security, whatever is imposed.” 

This report contains material from Reuters and the Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.