I'm not sure I agree with you, but for what it's worth I do understand the point you are making. You are making a separation between types of pressure which ar

I'm not sure I agree with you, but for what it's worth I do understand the point you are making. You are making a separation between types of pressure which are existential and those which are not. Norway could have accepted the lower exports on fish (less than 1% of their GDP) and continued on while snubbing China, but it was more beneficial to them economically to concede. However, this isn't existential because even if China refuses to trade with Norway entirely, through the EEA the Norwegian people could continue receiving goods from China mediated through a different EEA country that has trade agreements. At it's most dire what occurred simply wasn't an existential threat to Norway and the geographical distance meant that military reactions to trade disputes simply weren't going to occur. Thus the "force" here was mostly one of appearances, rather than reality. That said, I'm not entirely sure I agree that this doesn't meet the definition of "forcing". Politics is squishy like that. Just because fishing is less than 1% of the GDP doesn't mean it has minimal impact on Norwegian society. The fishing industry has significant historical and cultural significance to Norway and abandoning support of that industry could very well be political suicide within Norway for the politicians that refused to play ball. You could say its simply spineless, but the optics of them snubbing China and at the same time snubbing their own fishing industry aren't especially good.