Alex Rossi, Europe correspondent, in Brussels
SKYNEWS.COM
The Nato military alliance insists it is "impartial" and will not take sides in the conflict in Libya.
A Rafale fighter jet returns from a mission on the flight deck of France's flagship Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier
Coalition airstrikes have targeted Gaddafi's artillery and tanks
Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen insists the operational mandate is only to protect civilians in accordance with UN resolution 1973 and not to force Colonel Gaddafi from power.
Nato has now taken over command and control of the Libya mission amid accusations that coalition airstrikes have helped the rebels and could be responsible for creating the conditions for a prolonged civil war.
Since the strikes have started - coming from the air and sea - the rebels' advance towards Tripoli has been swift.
No longer backed up in Benghazi, anti-Gaddafi fighters have been able to swarm through strategic towns like Brega and Ras Lanuf.
No-one will say it officially but it is hard to argue away the evidence that the coalition seems to be taking sides.
Gaddafi's tanks and APCs lie destroyed along the roadside. Many of them are nowhere near civilian areas.
Meanwhile, on the political front, the French have officially recognised the Libyan National Council in the east as the official government of the country.
Paris claims the council represents the "will of the people".
It is an interesting development as we still do not know what civilians in cities like Sirte and Tripoli really want as independent witnesses - and the French government - have not been able to gain access.
Although the UN resolution is open to interpretation it does not allow the provision of air support for rebel fighters.
Intentionally or otherwise that has clearly happened.
Some Nato members - notably Turkey and Germany - are uncomfortable with the way the strikes have been carried out.
The claim is they are far from being impartial and are a thinly disguised method of prosecuting regime change against Colonel Gaddafi.
There is also the question of legality.
Middle East expert Rosemary Hollis explains: "It was fairly straightforward under the UN resolution to fire on military forces sent by the Gaddafi regime to kill and suppress rebels in Benghazi.
"It's a different matter when you have rebels taking on members of the regime in full battle on the ground. There is a legal issue of who are the civilians you are trying to protect."
As the rebels approach the Gaddafi stronghold of Sirte this analysis will become a much bigger issue.
It also begs the question: When does a rebel advance in the name of freedom become an act of aggression?
It may very well be that the airstrikes will become more limited under Nato control.
Certainly there have been calls from the Turkish for a stricter interpretation of the "rules of engagement".
The next few days will of course tell us what kind of role Nato will play when the alliance's planes start to police the skies.