Becoming the first African-American president of a nation that once imported black people as slaves is in itself a triumph in the field of peace — an accomplishment deserving of the Nobel Peace Prize.

But that isn’t what the Nobel committee gave President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for.

The reason given was “for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.”

Obama has done little different than past presidents who were not George W. Bush in that area. Clinton, George H.W. Bush, Reagan, Carter and Nixon all have high marks in the field of international diplomacy. Obama mainly has made efforts to repair America’s standing in the international community following a neo-con administration that even many traditional conservatives, too, disliked.

We imagine that even if John McCain had been elected president, he, too, would have had a job of repairing America’s standing in the world.

It makes Obama seem like he won simply for not being George W. Bush.

Obama did make a lofty call for global nuclear disarmament at the United Nations last month, but that came long after the nomination period closed.

With the 20th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square uprising approaching, the Nobel Peace Prize should have gone to Chinese dissidents, who before the announcement last week were predicted to be most likely to win.

China averted what the AP termed “a major poke-in-the-eye” when the Nobel went to Obama instead of a Chinese dissident such as human rights activist Hu Jia, presently serving a 3 1/2-year prison sentence for being critical of the government.

The Nobel committee should have awarded the dissidents the prize this year and waited until at least — the very least, anyway — next year for Obama, probably for his nuclear disarmament calls and his ending of President Reagan’s “Star Wars” initiative.