Sea Shepherd campaigners return after anti-whaling mission

Picture expired. The environmental group Sea Shepherd's ship Bob Barker is seen approaching the Japanese research vessel Yushin Maru, in the Southern Ocean, on March 2. AFP

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • -1

    marcelito

    We'll done SS...Keep it up.

  • -2

    taj

    "twice been exposed butchering minke whales...." What?

    Exposed? Poaching? It's public knowledge. And they are legally free to take whales there. They publish the details themselves.

    Who's writing this?

    AFP, did you really write it that way or did someone at JT edit off the, "...claims spokesman of Sea Shepherd"?

  • -1

    MGigante

    Damn, I hate these self-righteous, asshats.

    They should stop before they hurt themselves or one of these fishermen.

  • -1

    YuriOtani

    Bravo Zulu Sea Sheppard!!

  • 3

    Michael Barnard

    Great job, Sea Sheppard.********

  • 0

    Heda_Madness

    Sea Shepherd claim they have saved over 750 whales...

    On other sites they say these are Minke and Humpback... the Japanese were never going to take Humpback whales so yet again they are claiming something which doesn't face up to scrutiny.

  • -2

    zichi

    Whatever the whale hurting numbers will be they will be low but probably about the same as last season which was the lowest for decades. For the first time, the whalers will be returning to port with halal whale meat but will the Japanese Muslims buy and eat it, well not unless its also stored in separate refrigeration from the previous stocks which number more than 4,000 tons of unsold flesh because I guess its true that only about 15% of the adult population buy and eat it?

  • 0

    cleo

    the Japanese were never going to take Humpback whales so yet again they are claiming something which doesn't face up to scrutiny.

    The only reason they don't take humpbacks is the global outcry at the announcement of their intention to kill humpbacks during the 2007 'scientific research' season, followed by an 'agreement' with the IWC not to kill humpbacks for a couple of years. That global outcry probably would not have been so loud if SS had not kept the scandal of Japan's 'scientific research' in the public eye.

    What doesn't face up to scrutiny is the annual repetition of the blatant bare-faced lie of 'scientific research'.

    Well done, SS. Pity you couldn't have done even better and saved the whole 1,000 whales.

  • -2

    nigelboy

    Whatever the whale hurting numbers will be they will be low but probably about the same as last season which was the lowest for decades. For the first time, the whalers will be returning to port with halal whale meat but will the Japanese Muslims buy and eat it, well not unless its also stored in separate refrigeration from the previous stocks which number more than 4,000 tons of unsold flesh because I guess its true that only about 15% of the adult population buy and eat it?

    It's about 2400 tons now but Tuna has well over 70,000. I guess less than 15% is consuming tuna based on your logic.

    http://www.market.jafic.or.jp/suisan/file/reizo/2014/09syuyou2014_01.xls

  • 2

    cleo

    I guess less than 15% is consuming tuna based on your logic.

    No, poor logic on your part. In 2009, Japan consumed some 510,000 tons of tuna, which means stocks of 70,000 ton is not a huge backup; a mere 14% or so of turnover.

    According to Wiki, in 2006 around 5,560 tons of whale meat was sold in Japan, presumably including the stuff force-fed to schoolchildren and pensioners in hospitals and care homes. If there is 2400 tons in storage now (the yearly low, just before this year's 'research' is processed), that comes to a 43% back-up. Take zichi's closer-to-average number of 4,000, and we're talking a back-up stock of over 70%. And there isn't a quick and healthy turnover of the frozen whalemeat stocks - when a group of scientists showed that whalemeat on sale in Japanese supermarkets included meat from endangered animals covered by the moratorium, wasn't the 'explanation' that it must have been meat frozen from before the moratorium? So, rapid turnover of stocks, No. Need for thousands of tons of frozen whale meat mountain, No.

  • 1

    Disillusioned

    Yes, humpback whales are on Japan's hunting list, as are the southern right whale, both of which are still on the endangered or threatened species list. The thing that really boils my butt is, this whale sanctuary was set up by the IWC to preserve whale populations and to protect them from commercial whaling. However, Japan is using this sanctuary to research the viability of commercial whaling - for japan only! Let's hope the international court stops this farce. It will be very interesting to see Japan's reaction if/when the international court rules against them. If the international court rules against Japan and they drop out of the IWC and continue to hunt whales they will be hunting them illegally and will be poachers. If this happens it will create a whole new ball game.

  • -3

    nigelboy

    No, poor logic on your part. In 2009, Japan consumed some 510,000 tons of tuna, which means stocks of 70,000 ton is not a huge backup; a mere 14% or so of turnover.

    Nope. It's rather tight hence the volatility in prices. Probably not best to use inventory numbers alone which is my point.

    • Moderator

      Back on topic please. Tuna is not relevant to this discussion.

  • -4

    taj

    Disillusioned: "...this whale sanctuary was set up by the IWC to preserve whale populations and to protect them **for the future of ** commercial whaling."

    There, I fixed that for you.

  • -3

    zichi

    I guess over the past few years, the research part of the whale hurting has grind to a halt since previously the IRC stated it needs about a kill of 1,000 to gain the data for research and add to the 100 or so peer review papers costing more than ¥350 million each but not all were considered good science by the larger community and in fact, some scientists have stated the research is useless while others stated most of the data could be obtained without the whale hurting but the season comes to a close by the end of the month. The Hague is also about to giver their verdict on the case of Australia vs Japan.

  • -1

    Daniel Neagari

    And yet nobody cares about the culture (the japanese culture). Don't come here to say "there is no culture"... Of course there is going to be a big culture today because there is no meat for it to be "blooming". But then again, there is a culture because if there wasn't then why people still hunt for it, and there still offering it.

    If Japan over hunt whales, or go hunting whales that are clearly in danger (as the hunchback whales are) then I will be one of the first to protest.

    For the time being, I just keep wondering, where is Sea Spearhead to defend the rights of the Octopuses and Squids.

    Note: I just ate whale sashimi on Saturday and was fantastic.

  • 2

    Mike O'Brien

    he only reason they don't take humpbacks is the global outcry at the announcement of their intention to kill humpbacks during the 2007 'scientific research' season

    But there has been an outcry about killing ALL species of whales. So why has it only affected humpbacks?

    humpback whales are on Japan's hunting list, as are the southern right whale

    Southern Right Whales are not on the Japanese permit. And both species are listed as Least Concerned.

    However, Japan is using this sanctuary to research the viability of commercial whaling - for japan only!

    No if the IWC removes any species from the moratorium then ANY member of the IWC will be able to apply for a permit and quota.

    If the international court rules against Japan and they drop out of the IWC and continue to hunt whales they will be hunting them illegally and will be poachers.

    No, if Japan quits the IWC then none of the IWC regulations will apply to them and hunting whales will be legal, just like it is legal now. And just like the Canadian hunt of whales is legal even though they quit the IWC years ago.

  • -5

    James Dean Jnr.

    claiming to have saved more than 750 whales in their annual high seas showdown with Japanese whalers.

    Congratulations, you win an inflatable dart board!

  • 2

    OssanAmerica

    "Steve Irwin captain Sid Chakravarty said the harpooners had used “aggressive” tactics to flee from the activists .."

    How do you FLEE aggressively?

  • -1

    zabutonsenbei

    Eco terrorists…

  • -2

    arrestpaul

    There were three high seas confrontations during the campaign, described by Sea Shepherd as "ambushes" from the Japanese, and Bob Barker captain Peter Hammarstedt claimed the season had been a success.

    Steve Irwin captain Sid Chakravarty said the harpooners had used "aggressive" tactics to flee from the activists but "they could not hide from us".

    Hahaha. The eco-terrorist SS only located the whalers on three occasions and now they finally admit that it was the whalers who found the eco-terrorist SS. What a hoot.

    The eco-terrorist SS wandered around aimlessly for 94 days and are now trying to justify their expenses by trying to make people believe that is supposed to be a victory. If wasting fuel and learning port from starboard can be considered a victory.

    I'm surprised that Watson hasn't suffered a stroke over this failure by his personally trained, and still inept, "captains".

  • 0

    Dennis711

    I'm of two minds on this. The whales should not be over hunted because they are an important part of the ecosystem. And contrary to some posts the Japanese do eat whale and it was a staple food after WWII. The balance of nature is being held up because the SeaShepard is defending the whales and the Japanese hunters are still getting them. Yes people in Japan still eat whale.

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    Almost no one in Japan eat whale meat.

  • 0

    fxgai

    To be fair, Thomas, there is a ban on whaling commercially for the better part of 3 decades, so it's not like there's a whole load of whale around to be eaten.

    See the numbers mentioned above, 510K tons of tuna consumed, versus just 2.4K tons of whale in storage (or 4K if we take someone's idea of what is average). With such small volume it's hardly going to be a staple food like tuna is.

    I still don't know what the big deal is anyway, the IWC's own webpage shows they estimate there are 515K minke whales, and Japan is only trying to take 935? It's a drop in the bucket, certainly not worth the dangerous activities SS gets up to (unless they are doing it for fun or money).

  • -4

    Thomas Anderson

    fxgai

    To be fair, Thomas, there is a ban on whaling commercially for the better part of 3 decades, so it's not like there's a whole load of whale around to be eaten.

    How is that "fair"? You're acting as if whale hunting is completely legitimate, had it not been for the ban, which is true, but misses the point.

    And there IS a whole load of whale meat to be eaten. They're being rotten away in the freezer, cause nobody is buying it.

  • 5

    Strangerland

    You're acting as if whale hunting is completely legitimate, had it not been for the ban

    The whale hunting they do is legitimate by the terms of the IWC moratorium.

  • -4

    Thomas Anderson

    The whale hunting they do is legitimate by the terms of the IWC moratorium.

    No, and again, here comes the defensiveness. If it were not for those evil Westerners, then the whale hunting, which is part of Japanese culture, and therefore perfectly right and legitimate beyond a shred of belief in of itself, is completely and perfectly acceptable.

    The whale hunting is done through a loop hole.

  • 4

    Strangerland

    No, and again, here comes the defensiveness.

    Where's the defensiveness? I don't agree with the whaling, and I don't think Japan should be doing it. But seeing as I'm a person who examines situations based on their merits, and not based on my like or dislike of a race, I can recognize that while I don't think that Japan should be whaling, the fact is that they are permitted to do so under the terms of the moratorium. You even agree:

    The whale hunting is done through a loop hole.

    You do realize that a loophole means that it is allowed right? AKA 'legitimate'. Which means that even though you are putting up a fight because of your hatred of the Japanese, you agree with my statement:

    The whale hunting they do is legitimate by the terms of the IWC moratorium.

  • 3

    It"S ME

    Who put the loop hole there? Japan?

    No it was the IWC and all its members, some of which now are whining about it existing.

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    You do realize that a loophole means that it is allowed right?

    A loophole is an exploitation of a mistake in the law, so it shouldn't be happening.

  • 4

    It"S ME

    You mean like the tax loopholes, etc that exist and none complain while they benefit from them?

  • 1

    Strangerland

    A loophole is an exploitation of a mistake in the law, so it shouldn't be happening.

    The law was written as it was written. There are no mistakes in laws, there are only laws. If it wasn't supposed to be happening, it wouldn't be allowed to be happening.

    You are still arguing under the premise that Japan can do no right. Sorry, but your hatred of Japanese doesn't change the fact that they are allowed to hunt the whales they hunt.

  • -2

    Thomas Anderson

    And I can't believe that you're actually encouraging using loopholes.

    No law is perfect.

  • 2

    Strangerland

    And I can't believe that you're actually encouraging using loopholes.

    Let me quote myself, since you seem to be ignoring my comments:

    I don't agree with the whaling, and I don't think Japan should be doing it.

    I don't encourage the use of the loophole. But a loophole is just a negative way of expressing something that is allowed by a certain law/rule. If someone doesn't like that the loophole exists, then they either should have ensured it didn't exist in the first place, or they need to work to make it exist. The people using the loophole have every right to use it though. If they didn't have that right, the loophole wouldn't exist.

    Your premise however that the Japanese can do no right will never allow you to accept that though. Japan haters can find a way for Japan to be wrong no matter what the situation.

  • -3

    Thomas Anderson

    Ok, then do you have any idea on how to make them stop whaling under the pretense of "scientific research"?

  • 2

    Strangerland

    Yes, I do. They should go back and do the review of the moratorium that was expressly stated within the moratorium to have been done in 1990. This review has been blocked by anti-whaling countries, which in turn has led to the continuation of the loophole that allows the Japanese to gather information to be used for that review.

  • -1

    nigelboy

    Why would it be a "loophole" when Article VIII of IWC specifically states that such conduct is specified?

    The "loophole" I see is allowing and maintain nations who have no interest in any "development of the whaling industry" to be members.

  • -1

    cleo

    a loophole is just a negative way of expressing something that is allowed by a certain law/rule

    Why would it be a "loophole" when Article VIII of IWC specifically states that such conduct is specified?

    loophole noun 1 an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules : they exploited tax loopholes.

    Article VIII states any Contracting Government may grant to any of its nationals a special permit authorizing that national to kill, take and treat whales for purposes of scientific research subject to such restrictions as to number and subject to such other conditions as the Contracting Government thinks fit

    It does not 'specifically state' that it's OK to kill hundreds (or more than a thousand if SS will let you) whales specifically for the table, which is what Japan does.

    It's doubtful that 'special permit' was ever intended to mean every year, business as usual or that 'restrictions as to number' was intended to mean as many as you think you can sell the meat from. If Article VIII means what the pro-whalers and Japan tell us they think it means, it is meaningless since it means commercial whaling can continue unabated regardless of any moratorium. Obviously that is not and never was the intended meaning.

  • 2

    nigelboy

    It does not 'specifically state' that it's OK to kill hundreds (or more than a thousand if SS will let you) whales specifically for the table, which is what Japan does.

    I think it does considering the organization that set up the rules are, I repeat, "..DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHALING INDUSTRY"

  • -5

    Thomas Anderson

    nigelboy

    I think it does considering the organization that set up the rules are, I repeat, "..DEVELOPMENT OF THE WHALING INDUSTRY"

    Whaling is still completely and totally banned.

    So is Japan trying to make money, or lose it?

    Japan has given US$320 million in overseas aid to Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Guinea, Morocco, Panama, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, St Kitts and Nevis and the Solomon Islands.

    I wonder if whaling is actually worth wasting hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars.

  • -3

    cleo

    nigelboy, I think you and I must be looking at different 'versions' of Article VIII. Please quote the bit where it specifically states that it's OK to kill whales numbering in the hundreds or thousands, annually, for the table.

    Or are you having trouble understanding words like specifically?

  • 1

    nigelboy

    Whaling is still completely and totally banned.

    Nope.

    I wonder if whaling is actually worth wasting hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. Where is the "patriotism"? Do you not love Japan, or do you just love wasting Japanese tax-payers' money. You must be anti-Japanese.

    Huh? Every time you do this, I interpret as you raising a white flag.

    In any case, I already mentioned the anti-whaling nation being a member or being recruited as a member who have no interest in the development of the whaling industry. It's the biggest LOOPHOLE I see.

  • -7

    Thomas Anderson

    Nope.

    Yes.

    In any case, I already mentioned the anti-whaling nation being a member or being recruited as a member who have no interest in the development of the whaling industry. It's the biggest LOOPHOLE I see.

    So you're against democracy, I see.

    And you're for Japanese whaling, just because a selected few in the whaling industry benefits. You must be anti-Japanese.

  • 2

    nigelboy

    Yes

    ??? Then IWC is no longer in existence and there is no commerce. Sorry. In your own mind.

    So you're against democracy, I see.

    Huh?

    And you're for Japanese whaling, just because a selected few in the whaling industry benefits. You must be anti-Japanese.

    I'm for giving welfare (who are selected few) who are in need. Does that make me anti anything?

  • -8

    Thomas Anderson

    ??? Then IWC is no longer in existence and there is no commerce.

    The IWC wants to "preserve the stocks for the future" or "want to make sure that commercial whaling is safe". Please stop using poor deduction abilities.

    I'm for giving welfare (who are selected few) who are in need. Does that make me anti anything?

    That makes no sense, again. You're only for Japanese whaling just because a selected few in the whaling industry benefits. Nobody eats whale meat, and Japan is wasting hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. This money could be used elsewhere. But alas, you must REALLY hate Japan because I can only see this weakening Japan.

  • 3

    nigelboy

    The IWC wants to "preserve the stocks for the future" or "want to make sure that commercial whaling is safe". Please stop using poor deduction abilities.

    Thank you thank you tank you. The article VIII is in place so that while research is taking place, the market continues at a level to where when the moratorium is lifted, they can lift the moratorium and develop the whaling industry in an orderly manner. Thank you.

    That makes no sense, again. You're only for Japanese whaling just because a selected few in the whaling industry benefits. Nobody eats whale meat, and Japan is wasting hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars. This money could be used elsewhere. But alas, you must REALLY hate Japan because I can only see this weakening Japan.

    It's not working TA. There are many subsidies within any country that are "selected few".

  • -3

    cleo

    The article VIII is in place so that while research is taking place, the market continues

    Sorry, I missed that bit, too. Where does it say that the purpose of Article VIII/'scientific research' is to keep the market ticking over?

    Talk about reading into something what you want to read into it....

  • 4

    nigelboy

    Sorry, I missed that bit, too. Where does it say that the purpose of Article VIII/'scientific research' is to keep the market ticking over?

    What else is there Cleo? Do you believe that if no consumption/commerce were conducted during the moratorium and that when ban is finally lifted, the market is there and waiting? Personally for you, that is wishful thinking but an organization for specifically dedicating for whaling, I'm quite positive that was the spirit of the Article. Better stop thinking as this Charter was set up by an environmentalist organization.

  • -1

    cleo

    for you, that is wishful thinking but an organization for specifically dedicating for whaling, I'm quite positive that was the spirit of the Article.

    I think you are the one doing the wishful thinking. The Article says specifically, 'for purposes of scientific research'. Not 'for purposes of keeping the market there and waiting'. Remember the Article was written in 1946, at the time the Convention for the Regulation of Whaling came into being; long before any moratorium was even thought of. You're seriously suggesting that people in 1946 deliberately wrote in a proviso to cover an eventuality that no one at the time considered in the least likely? (The Convention speaks of conservation in terms of protected/unprotected species, open/closed seasons, sanctuaries, quotas, equipment, etc. No mention at all of a moratorium on all commercial whaling - that didn't come until 40 years later).

    The spirit of the moratorium is clearly, No Whales Killed for Profit. What Japan does clearly violates that spirit.

  • 3

    nigelboy

    The spirit of the moratorium is clearly, No Whales Killed for Profit. What Japan does clearly violates that spirit.

    Thank you. They aren't killed for "profit" as you have alluded to many times with government subsidy.

    "Any whales taken under these special permits shall so far as practicable be processed and the proceeds shall be dealt with in accordance with directions issued by the Government by which the permit was granted."

  • -3

    cleo

    They aren't killed for "profit"

    Of course they are. Not a single member of the crew of any of the harpoon ships or the factory ship is there pro bono; they all get paid. None of the 'scientists' cutting up the animals, taking photos of the stomach contents and then tipping them over the side is there on a volunteer basis; they all get paid. The people in charge of the cold storage facilities where the frozen meat is kept get paid. The restaurant owners who serve whale meat are running profitable establishments, not soup kitchens; they don't put whalemeat on the menu as a loss-leader. Just because the average taxpayer who has no interest in whaling and no intention of ever eating whale meat is getting screwed over every which way doesn't mean lots of people aren't making a profit. Why do you think the 'scientific research' has continued so long? Because enough people with influence have their noses in the trough, is why. The same reason Japan has so many roads and bridges to nowhere, and a massive national debt.

  • 2

    nigelboy

    Of course they are. Not a single member of the crew of any of the harpoon ships or the factory ship is there pro bono; they all get paid. None of the 'scientists' cutting up the animals, taking photos of the stomach contents and then tipping them over the side is there on a volunteer basis; they all get paid. The people in charge of the cold storage facilities where the frozen meat is kept get paid. The restaurant owners who serve whale meat are running profitable establishments, not soup kitchens; they don't put whalemeat on the menu as a loss-leader. Just because the average taxpayer who has no interest in whaling and no intention of ever eating whale meat is getting screwed over every which way doesn't mean lots of people aren't making a profit. Why do you think the 'scientific research' has continued so long? Because enough people with influence have their noses in the trough, is why. The same reason Japan has so many roads and bridges to nowhere, and a massive national debt.

    Why are you bringing up "salaries"? That's like saying ALL NPO are actually "for profit" since the staff get salaries and the organization leases office so the landlord makes "profit, the printing company that produced their brochures/name card makes "profit", etc.

  • -1

    zichi

    most of the crew on the whalers are foreigners earning less wages than their Japanese counterparts.

  • 0

    fxgai

    cleo,

    It does not 'specifically state' that it's OK to kill hundreds

    More crucially, I think, it doesn't specifically state that that is not OK.

    I'm no lawyer and I'm not sure anyway if common law is relevant in this case, but my understanding is that typically rather than having to have a law passed before something it legal, it works the other way around. Then principles are used as precedents for various specific instances.

    In this case, I'm not sure what interpretation one could come up with that would work against Japan.

    It's doubtful that 'special permit' was ever intended to mean every year, business as usual or that 'restrictions as to number' was intended to mean as many as you think you can sell the meat from.

    It does say the government can do as it thinks fit. This seems to work in Japan's favor in this case.

    While entertaining this discussion is almost entirely mute. The ICJ is going to announce it's judgement on Monday next week about Australia's and Japan's arguments.

    If Article VIII means what the pro-whalers and Japan tell us they think it means, it is meaningless since it means commercial whaling can continue unabated regardless of any moratorium.

    If Australia has shown what Japan does is not at all for research, they would have a good case, but it does appear that Japan has produced arguments to support their position. Outright commercial whaling would obviously be a violation, but the issue comes down to Japan's claims that it's doing research, versus Australia's claims that it is just "research in disguise".

    So the ICJ will let us know next Monday, let's come review again here at JT next Tuesday!

    I hope for a nice clear-cut interpretation with egg on the face of one side or the other, but with these fancy lawyers and judges involved I suppose there is a good chance of a non-event.

  • 0

    cleo

    rather than having to have a law passed before something it legal, it works the other way around

    Yes, and the moratorium makes commercial whaling illegal.

    It does say the government can do as it thinks fit.

    And that's the loophole. Back in 1946 I'm sure they expected the government of each country to make sure the people under their jurisdiction stuck to the rules, not to take over the industry and start writing its own rules.

    Japan has produced arguments to support their position

    Of course they have. But the bottom line is that the reason they go down to the Antarctic every year is to get the meat. Tell them they can take as many whales as they like for research but not one plateful of meat can be brought back, and the 'scientific research' would come to an immediate stop.

  • 1

    fxgai

    cleo,

    Yes, and the moratorium makes commercial whaling illegal.

    It does say the government can do as it thinks fit.

    And that's the loophole.

    Agreed on those points, although the first is not disputed by anyone.

    Back in 1946 I'm sure they expected the government of each country to make sure the people under their jurisdiction stuck to the rules, not to take over the industry and start writing its own rules.

    Well that's true, but I imagine they also envisaged commercial whaling to be legal too. (And why shouldn't it be when the IWC's own webpage says there are some 515K minke whales, but that's just me.)

    the bottom line is that the reason they go down to the Antarctic every year is to get the meat.

    That's for the ICJ to judge next Monday. I hope those SS goons respect the decision, whatever it may be.

  • 1

    zichi

    There is no FOC fishing vessel in Japan. A mixed crewing system, allowing foreign based crew, has been introduced for distant-water fishing vessels and some 4000 foreign seafarers, 75% of whom are Indonesian, have been accepted. http://www.itfglobal.org/seafarers/icons-site/images/JSU.pdf

Login to leave a comment

OR
  • Reservations and Operations Executive

    Reservations and Operations Executive
    Destination Asia Japan、Tokyo
    Salary: ¥2.0M ~ ¥3.0M / Year
  • Marketing & Communications

    Marketing & Communications
    East West Consulting (イーストウエストコンサルティング株式会社)、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable
  • Country Manager

    Country Manager
    Gallo Japan KK、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable
  • Business Development Leader

    Business Development Leader
    GPlus Media K.K. / 株式会社ジープラス・メディア、Tokyo
    Salary: Salary negotiable Commission Based Depending on Experience
  • IT Operations Manager

    IT Operations Manager
    Temple University, Japan Campus - テンプル大学ジャパンキャンパス、Tokyo
    Salary: Commensurate with experience plus transportation from/to TUJ

More in National

View all

View all