18| F ROM SELF ­DOUBT TO SELF ­ASSURANCE Re-evaluate EEAS resources Staff The decision to elevate the EEAS to the status of a separate‘institution’ for staff purposes not only entailed the separation of its personnel from Commission and Council staff but also, as indicated earlier, inheriting rigid procedures from each of these institutions. As a result, bad ‘everyone for themselves’ habits became ingrained, most poignantly at EU delegations, with lingering negative consequences for the management of EEAS staff, both in rotation and appointment policies. Typifying this rigidity, Commission staff‘leaving’ for the EEAS were denied the right of return to the Commission. The decision of the first HRVP to sign up to the Council objective of reducing EU staff and administrative costs by 5% meant that from the very start, the EEAS could not build up its capacity but instead had to draw it down. This reduction did not concern security matters but, for instance, geographical services and representation in the field, thereby opening up gaps that still need to be plugged. Ways have been found to correct the faults in the weave, some more successful than others. The EEAS thus acquired more budget for security, CSDP development at HQ, in-field security of EUDs and missions, and communications(e.g. the creation of STRATCOM to counter disinformation), though not for the further development of SIAC-capabilities. Building on recent staff increases, further investment should be made in countering disinformation and in cooperation with member states in this regard and supported by an adequately enhanced capability of EU.INTCEN. Another way to address shortfalls was to maintain EUSR operations. EU Special Representatives have undeniable advantages: they are valuable in addressing specific thematic or regional issues, particularly for highly political conflict management. Placed outside of the EEAS, the appointment of EUSRs has increased the buy-in from member states in EU foreign policy. But if not deployed properly they can also cause confusion for the EU external representation on the ground. The EUSRs system should indeed be reviewed. They have not always been used in the right location; they should be mostly considered to handle the regional dimension of conflicts or thematic issues, with a time-limited mandate of three years(renewal only under strict conditions) that should not impede, duplicate or overshadow the role of the HoDs(cf. Kosovo, Bosnia and Herzegovina) and be better embedded inside EEAS, notably in terms of reporting lines. If the EEAS is to raise its credibility as a specialist organisation and leader on global issues, its composition must reflect and be consistent with the Union’s image and the principles it helps project. The work already carried out to ensure a gender-balanced Service at all echelons of its organisation should be increased, as the EEAS is lagging compared to many member states and other organisations. Indeed, the ambition of the EEAS is to be staffed by‘the best and brightest’. This means that the quality of analysis at desk officer level, junior and mid-level, needs to be strengthened. Borrowing external human resources is valuable, including by