Ok the answer already posted by CuriousMind, explains in a nutshel the (official) interpretation of QM plus some application aspects.
However since i think i understand the motivation of the question, i will try to give another answer.
First although Bell's theorem of no-local realism is indeed important, there are in fact other formulations (or more correctly interpretations) of QM, which arrive at the same central equation (i.e Schrodinger equation) albeit though different premises and interpretation, but nevertheless explain and predict exactly the same things conventional QM does (e.g Bohmian Mechanics and others). In order not to feel ugly if one does not like the official QM too much, remember that Einstein himself famously did not subscribe to that interpretation (of course even Einstein can be wrong).
Now concerning the nature of "forces", this is an issue that has multiple facets. For example gravity, in General Relativity, is just curvature of space, whereas by Newton's original formulation can be assigned to the (gravitational) mass of objects.
Electromagnetism similarly is assigned to (the motion of) charged particles (among others).
There are even forces (or apparent forces) which although real (and experienced) are not assigned to a particle or object but rather to a relative motion between systems of objects (will leave that for now).
Similarly in QM, many forces just carry from the classical description into a quantum one by the process known as quantization. This is based on a principle of QM that it should re-produce classical results if taken to this limit (known as principle of correspondence).
When no classical description is available to apply to a quantum system, a suitable generalization is sought (usually) that generalises a known classical description and when quantized gives correct results (an example is Yang-Mills theory which generalises electromagnetism in multiple dimensions). As a result then any (conserved generalised) charges are taken to be the source of the associated generalised forces (which make the objects interact) that also are described (exactly like electromagnetism) by the theory.
As one can see in the answer (and in how physics descriptions are made and used), there is an equivalence between these 3 concepts:
"CHARGE" - "MOTION / INTERACTION" - "FORCE"
Now one can use one or two of these concepts and have the third as a derivative concept, for example one can use "charge" and "motion" of objects and derive a concept of "force" which unites these concepts in various compatibility conditions for a given system.
Alternatively one can use "force" and "motion" and derive a "charge" concept which similarly is used to define compatibility conditions for a given system that relate "force" and "interaction".
The fact remains that these concepts (or more correctly descriptions) are related in various ways and describe conditions on the evolution of given systems. One can use words like "force" or "charge" (which are generalizations or extarpolations of other cases), one can as well use words with no previous meaning (like "quarks" or "strangeness" etc..). It is not of the essense although in many cases it can imply meaningful generalisations