Prime Minister Narendra Modi (L) talks with Chinese Premier Li Keqiang during a signing ceremony at the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, China. (Photo: Reuters)

Three weeks after acknowledging for the first time India's aspirations to join the Nuclear Suppliers Group, China has voiced similar backing to Pakistan's bid and drawn a clear link between both countries' efforts to join the influential body that governs global nuclear trade.

In a statement on Wednesday likely to raise eyebrows in India considering what New Delhi sees as the vast differences in proliferation records of India and Pakistan, China indicated that it saw both countries' aspirations to join the NSG in the same vein.

China had last month in the joint statement following Prime Minister Narendra Modi's visit said it "took note of India's aspirations to become a member of the NSG, in a bid to strengthen international non-proliferation efforts". That statement was hailed as being significant by Indian officials as marking the first instance of official Chinese recognition of India's bid.

On Wednesday, asked by Pakistani official media about Pakistan's wish to join the NSG, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Hua Chunying said in a statement: "China has noted Pakistan's aspirations for NSG membership".

Going further than the backing voiced to India last month, Hua added, "Pakistan has taken steps towards its mainstreaming into the global non-proliferation regime. We support Pakistan's engagement with the NSG, and hope such efforts could be conducive to the authority and effectiveness of the international non-proliferation regime. We wish to strengthen communication and coordination with Pakistan."

Hua did, however, reiterate China's view that the NSG and the international community needed to deliberate thoroughly the inclusion of countries such as India and Pakistan who have not signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) into the body.

"It is the long-standing consensus of the international community that the NPT is the cornerstone of the [international non-proliferation] regime. The recently concluded Ninth NPT Review Conference has reaffirmed this consensus. On account of this, the NSG has so far regarded the status of the NPT state as a crucial standard to accept new member state," she said.

In a likely reference to India, Hua added, "In fact, besides Pakistan, there are other non NPT states who have expressed similar aspirations. This raises an issue to the international community, that is, whether non NPT states are in the position to join the NSG. China believes that this issue deserves thorough discussion among NSG member states in accordance with relevant rules, thus to make a decision by consensus."

China was initially strongly opposed to the NSG granting a waiver for India's civilian nuclear cooperation with the United States to go ahead in 2005.

But while India and the U.S. sought a waiver from the body for cooperation to go ahead, including India adopting a range of commitments, China has gone ahead with supplying nuclear technology to Pakistan while ignoring the NSG's rules that prohibit the transfer of technology to non-NPT countries without waivers.

In 2009, China signed deals for two reactors, Chashma-3 and Chashma-4, which triggered controversy as the agreements followed China's joining the NSG. China argued at the time the reactors were "grandfathered" under an earlier agreement between the countries that predated its membership.

However, Beijing has since gone ahead with two new reactors in Karachi, which countries such as the United States and India argue could not be included under a grandfathering argument.

U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for International Security and Non-Proliferation Thomas Countryman said last month that while the NSG's members had agreed on grandfather construction plants that had been already initiated by China, there was no agreement that this was "an open-ended clause".

China's new projects, he said, were "not consistent" with the rules of the NSG. Beijing, however, has made clear that it will go ahead with projects regardless of the NSG's concerns, arguing that the deals were civilian projects that were under safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).